Intro to the Federal Rules of Evidence - 54

2. Party-Opponent Admissions (FRE 801(d)(2))
a. In General
i) Rationale
The notion that people should take responsibility for their own words and act.
Under an adversary system, a party can hardly object that he had no opportunity to cross-examine himself or that he is unworthy of credence save when speaking under sanction of an oath.

ii) Evidentiary v. judicial admissions
Judicial admissions, such as admissions in pleadings or in stipulations, are binding; 801(d)(2) out-of-court admissions are evidentiary which can be rebutted at trial.

iii) Inapplicability of the firsthand knowledge & opinion rules
Either one does not apply to admissions of a party-opponent. An admission is admissible even though it contains an opinion or a conclusion of law, and even though it is not based on the declarant’s first-hand knowledge.

Example: After an auto accident, D tells a police officer, “The accident was my fault.” Even though a witness’s in-court expression of an opinion is normally not admissible, this out-of-court expression will be admissible against D. Of course, D is always free to take the stand to explain why his opinion is mistaken, taken out of context, etc. the same rule of admissibility would apply where D expressed a conclusion of law (e.g., “P will probably be able to sue my rear end off.”

iv) Declarations against interest v. admissions
Unlike a declaration against interest, an admission need not be against the declarant’s interest at the time it is made. Even a statement that seems neutral or self-serving at the time it is made may be introduced against the party who made it.

Example: D is charged with murdering his wife by stabbing her. At the beginning of their investigation, police believed that the stabbing took place at 7:00 p.m. D tells them, “I left the house at 6:45. It later turns out that the murder probably took place at 6:30. The prosecution may introduce D’s statement against him, since it is an admission. This is so even though the statement is not a “declaration against interest,” since at the time he made it, D believed the statement was exculpatory.