Whether Oregon Evidence Code Rule 804(8)(c) violates the Due Process Clause by excluding a third-party confession that is recanted and inconsistent with known facts

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Oregon Evidence Code Rule 804(8)(c), like Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3)(B), allows admission of an out-of-court statement against penal interest only if the declarant is unavailable and the statement is supported by corroborating circumstances that clearly indicate its trustworthiness. Does that rule of evidence violate the Due Process Clause, as interpreted by Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973), when it excludes a third-party confession that is recanted by the declarant in court and inconsistent with known facts about the crime? 2. Respondent did not present a Chambers claim in state court, but the Ninth Circuit reached the merits under Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995), which allows the courts to excuse a default when a habeas petitioner presents reliable new evidence establishing actual innocence. Are recantations by trial witnesses and a recanted third-party confession sufficient to satisfy Schlup? i