This particular rule of evidence is actually really very fascinating, and I'm reading
this legal review article about it right now. The case that led to it
actually has a good Wikipedia article- it probably was stolen from some other public domain source.
Would this be relevant to the situation in question? I don't pretend to fully understand it, but 803(3) codified a exception to prohibitions on hearsay in a case where one man was said to have died and another- who had written a letter in which he stated he was going to go into partnership with the 'dead' man- disappeared, and an insurance company contested paying out a policy on the man who was said to have died on the basis of a theory that the decedent had not, in fact, died, but had killed the missing man and conspired to have him buried in his place.
The Supreme Court found in
Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New York v. Hillmon that the missing man's letter in which he described his intention to go into partnership with Hillmon could be taken into account.
Now.. I believe this has been extended somewhat, in terms that more modern documentation of how a person felt about some matter at a point in the past that they can no longer testify to can be accepted (not just letters obv), and that it could also be applied in regards someone who simply has no recollection of a previous event, as well as someone who is dead and unavailable. I don't believe that it would be applied to claims made by someone else about how a person involved felt, especially after the actual event in question when the two stupid faggots in question were talking themselves up.
Now, I hope Rittenhouse gets a semi-fair trial. I hope he can pay for a decent attorney with a bit of political pull, and a great jury consultant, and PR consultants and private detectives to intimidate his enemies into behaving honestly.
But we can look at a similar case, involving evidence of the state of mind of antifa terrorists, in the case of a man who was attacked by antifa and tried to flee, only injuring others in the course of escaping from their violent terrorist attacks.
UNC Professor Dwayne Dixon
allowed himself to be recorded boasting that he chased James Alex Fields with a rifle, barely failing to kill him, before Fields was physically attacked by Dixon's fellow terrorists and was involved in a car accident.
This wasn't even his friend's testimony over his state of mind- it was his own testimony. He described his own intention to attack someone for peacefully protesting.
Dixon was called to the stand at Fields's trial and denied this. The attorney assigned to defend Fields declined to question his lies on the stand. Fields received a sentence of over 400 years for being victimized by antifa terrorists.
I enjoy the meme, but the Geneva Conventions are not, as far as I know, incorporated into US case law around self-defence.