We have explored the question of whether Tammy's hypothetical statement, "[d]addy generally ran the same off-tackle play all the time, and often didn't gain much yardage," would be admissible in a number of situations.

It seems that her statement would only be admissible against Tidings if he had expressed agreement with it.

The first question in this series was this one:

Hoggs wishes to offer in his defense the testimony of Dean Moliere, the chief academic officer at State U.

Moliere will testify, if permitted, "[l]ast year, prior to the time when all the litigation over Raoul Tidings' football career started, his daughter Tammy was speaking to the new inductees of her honor society, the Statespeople, and said, 'Daddy would be the first to tell you that his football career was inconsequential next to the education he received here and the meaning that State U. added to his life.' At the end of her speech, she received a standing ovation, and her father was among those applauding."

Tidings has objected that the statement is inadmissible hearsay, and does not satisfy any exception or exclusion. Hoggs says that the statement is Tidings' admission under 801(d)(2)(B). Which is correct?

You said that the statement would be admissible under 801(d)(2)(B). The hypothetical in italics says that Tidings applauded Tammy's speech.

Would her speech, then, be admissible?