"In retrial of interstate kidnapping resulting in death case, trial court did not err under FRE 106 Rule of Completeness in excluding self-serving exculpatory statements of the defendant or hearsay statements by his attorney in a recorded jailhouse phone call, parts of which had been offered by the prosecution regarding the defendant’s plan to kill certain witnesses, because FRE 106 does not render otherwise inadmissible evidence admissible, in United States v. Lentz, 524 F.3d 501 (4th Cir. May 12, 2008) (No. 06-4691)"
The defendent has every right to submit a statement regarding his innocence and the circumstances surrounding the charges against him. It is up to the prosecution to prove that he is lying.
I spent a number of posts a few days ago, first hinting (because it's better if a person figures out the legal framework), then giving up that the answer lies in the difference between hearsay and direct evidence. What I got for thanks was being called stupid.
They can be written documents, such as a letter stating something like..."You know I wasn't there...". Such a statement in a letter (or email) is worthless as proof of anything without the person to whom it was addressed acknowledging that it is a true statement. The same is true of un-corroborated statements to LE.
Self-serving statements are any self-exculpatory statements that lack neutral corroborating evidence or eyewitness testimony. Zimmerman's statement to Sanford PD meets this definition.
I provided one of many decisions that are out there to be found.
How about instead of giggling you provide one that supports your assertion.....