Page:Touhy v. Walgreen Company.pdf/17

 (2) Ms. Frazier told him about (3) what Ms. Frazier heard from Ms. Whitlock. For hearsay within hearsay to be admitted as evidence, a hearsay exception must apply to each link of the chain. See Fed. R. Evid. 805. Even assuming without deciding that the link comprising Ms. Whitlock's alleged statement to Ms. Frazier might be non-hearsay as a party-opponent admission, Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2), Ms. Touhy has failed to point to any hearsay exceptions for the other segments of the chain, and we likewise discern none.

Ms. Touhy argues that Ms. Whitlock's alleged statement should be considered nonetheless because it could conceivably be admitted at trial to impeach Mr. Abrams in the event he testifies that Ms. Whitlock was not his source of information. But a prior statement offered for impeachment purposes is admissible only to show that the speaker is not worthy of belief; it is not received for the truth of the matter asserted. See United States v. Carter, 973 F.2d 1509, 1512 (10th Cir. 1992) (“A witness' prior statements are admissible only to impeach or discredit the witness and are not competent substantive evidence of - 17 -