context: However, courts faced with this issue have refused to apply this provision to government employees testifying in criminal trials based on the rationale that no individual can bind the sovereign.
citation_a.signal: cf.
citation_a.identifier: 996 F.2d 1490, 1497
citation_a.parenthetical: affirming rule for criminal trials but questioning applicability of rule to civil litigation
citation_a.sentence: See United States v. Kampiles, 609 F.2d 1233, 1246 (7th Cir.1979) ("Because the agents of the Government are supposedly disinterested in the outcome of a trial and are traditionally unable to bind the sovereign, their statements seem less the product of the adversary process and hence less appropriately described as admissions of a party.” (citations omitted)), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 954, 100 S.Ct. 2923, 64 L.Ed.2d 812 (1980); United States v. Santos, 372 F.2d 177, 180 (2d Cir.1967) (holding inconsistent out of court statements otherwise admissible not admissible against government in criminal prosecution); United States v. Durrani, 659 F.Supp. 1183 (D.Conn.) (citing cases listed above), aff'd, 835 F.2d 410 (2d Cir.1987); cf. Lippay v. Christos, 996 F.2d 1490, 1497 (3d Cir.1993) (affirming rule for criminal trials but questioning applicability of rule to civil litigation).
citation_b.signal: but see
citation_b.identifier: 581 F.2d 933, 938
citation_b.parenthetical: questioning applicability of rule when Government had expressed its belief in the statement of the declarant
citation_b.sentence: But see United States v. Morgan, 581 F.2d 933, 938 (D.C.Cir.1978) (questioning applicability of rule when Government had expressed its belief in the statement of the declarant).