where the statement is inherently trustworthy, that is to say, that
the circumstances in which the statement was made and any corroborative or conflicting evidence render it so reliable that contemporaneous cross-examination of the declarant would add little
if anything to the process. This unsworn statement by one of five
accused made one month after arrest simply displays none of the
indicia of trustworthiness.
 Relaxation of the rigours of the hearsay rule would
also not assist the appellant’s case for admissibility. As the
authorities make clear, relaxation of the rule does not mean
that the reliability requirement is abandoned. And it is the
failure of this evidence to satisfy the reliability requirement that
renders it inadmissible.
 A final point concerns the residual discretion of a trial
judge to exclude otherwise admissible evidence on the basis of the
balance between its probative value and its prejudicial effect. This
was a joint trial. The other accused opposed the introduction of
this statement for the purposes proposed by the appellant. Even
with the standard applicable to defence evidence, it is difficult to
see how this double hearsay would survive the analysis.
 In the end, the “exculpatory” aspects of Heang’s statement got before the jury as part of the appellant’s defence through
trial counsel’s closing address. Even if the trial judge erred in failing to admit Heang’s statement for the purposes advanced by the
appellant, the result would not have been different.
Ground #4: Misapprehension of Evidence
 The final ground of appeal alleges that the trial judge
misapprehended the evidence of a witness and misstated it in the
charge to the jury. A brief sketch of the background is sufficient
for an understanding of the alleged error.
The evidence of Rin Ken
 Rin Ken, a guest at the party, testified that she had seen
a man with a folding knife chase after the deceased. This man
wore a white shirt “with a kind of line or with a checker board”.
He was dressed differently than the appellant who was wearing
a white shirt and white baseball cap. Ms. Ken was shown the video, including the portion which depicted pursuit of the deceased.
She did not see the man whom she had described in the video.
The charge to the jury
 In his final instructions, the trial judge provided the
usual directions to the jury about the purpose of the evidentiary
references contained in the charge and the obligation of the jury