Whether the Eighth Circuit's interpretation of Federal Rule of Evidence 803(3) conflicts with other circuits' understanding and should be corrected by the Supreme Court

1. Given that the Eighth Circuit is the lone holdout in an 11-1 circuit split on the meaning of Federal Rule of Evidence 803(3), should the Eighth Circuit’s line of cases holding that statements which allow not only the state of mind of the declarant but also the reasons why a declarant has a particular state of mind—which was applied in this case to admit critical evidence against Petitioner—be corrected by this Court to align with the law in every other circuit? 2. Whether the Eighth Circuit erred when it created the new and unprecedented doctrine that a witness may obtain Fifth Amendment immunity from testifying on the grounds that he might lie on the stand?