In In re Weber (1974) 11 Cal.3d 703, a prison inmate convicted of soliciting another to bribe an official petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging newly discovered evidence that would undermine the testimony of the person he had supposedly solicited. The "new" evidence was the testimony of another inmate, Anderson, who allegedly overheard the solicitee--who was an inmate in another facility--admit to "framing" Weber. In the opinion, the foundation for a declaration against interest was discussed. The court then rejected Weber's argument that Anderson's statements were declarations against interest as Anderson was not made "an object of hatred, ridicule, or social disgrace" (Evid. Code, 1230) merely for being known as a "snitch." Specifically, nothing in the statements guaranteed their reliability, which is the basis for the exception. ( Weber, supra, 11 Cal.3d at pp. 721-722.)