I received some questions about Question # 192, so I wanted to clarify a bit.
We have this:
Para <-- Neighbor ("Brooke said Joe shot Leslie w/ revolver") <-- Brooke ("Joe shot Leslie w/ a revolver")
Here's a better way to think about the portion from the Neighbor to the Paramedic: This utterance contains two statements: 1) Joe shot Leslie w/ a revolver and 2) Brooke said that.
So what you can do with the combined statements depends on what you are trying to prove.
If you want to prove Brooke made the statement (i.e, making the statement is relevant independent of what she said), then "Brooke said" is offered TMA but admissible under 803(1) or (2), assuming you can establish foundation (timing or the neighbor's excitement when he spoke to the paramedic). The first statement ("Joe killed") is not offered TMA, but is incidental to the second statement ("Brooke said") and thus not problematic, subject to a pretty strong 403 objection (the jury will use it TMA and it goes to the heart of the case).
If, as here, you want to prove that Joe killed Leslie, then both statements are TMA. "Brooke said" is 803(1) or (2), as above. But "Joe shot" raises different concerns. That is why you need to turn to 803(4).
