the downside is that you really have to die.

Although IANAL, I've seen/heard reports of a number of cases where the "dying statement" argument has been accepted when the person making them didn't actually die.

The real requirement in some courts is that at the time when the statement was made, the speaker merely believed he was about to die.

Perhaps that's why laws in quite a few places refer to it as a "deathbed declaration" rather than a "dying testimony." If you're gonna get by with it, you'd probably best be stretched out flat, or close to it.

Of course the lawyers get to argue about what evidence is admissible, and those arguments probably should be done where the jury doesn't hear them, but that's not always the case. The argument over whether such a statement can be admitted could be an opportunity for one side to establish a bias in the jury that might affect subsequent jury decisions. (Convincing the jury that the other lawyer is a real ass can really help your side, so sometimes lawyers start arguments they have no chance of winning just with the hope of convicting the opposing counsel in the eyes of the jury?)

John