Federal Rule of Evidence 413 and comparable rules in a few States create an express exception to the prohibition against circumstantial use of character, the prohibition against the use of character to show conduct. Rules such as Rule 413 provide that in a criminal trial for sexual assault evidence of the defendant's commission of another offense or offenses of sexual assault is admissible.

United States v. Hangrove, 508 F.3d 445, 448 (7th Cir. 2007) (upholding trial court's admission of the Hicks-Veal tapes which did not violate defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause because "coconspirator....The right of confrontation guaranteed by the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution puts no constraints on the admissibility of nontestimonial hearsay statements; the federal constitutional right of confrontation does not apply to such statements.

Cf. Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 899 (1983) (although finding that evidence of defendant's dangerousness was not barred by due process, there is a negative pregnant buried in the Court's conclusion: "We are not persuaded that that such testimony is almost entirely unreliable and that the...The Due Process guarantee of a fair trial may place some limits on the use of unreliable evidence in a criminal trial to show guilt.

Tome v. United States, 513 U.S. 150, pin? (1995) (5-4 opinion; Court's discussion assumes rule that prior consistent statements are admissible to rehabilitate witness under some circumstances; note that Part II-B of opinion commanded the approval of only a plurality of the...If witness has been impeached with a prior inconsistent statement or by some other kind of evidence of untruthfulness, an opposing party can attempt to rehabilitate the witness with a prior consistent statement if the prior consistent statement tends to counter untruthfulness. This normally means that the prior consistent statement must have been made before the occurrence of the circumstances or events that the impeaching party expressly or impliedly suggested supply the motive or incentive for false or fabricated testimony by the witness; i.e., a prior consistent statement is admissible to counter impeachment by a prior inconsistent statement or by other evidence of untruthfulness, but a prior consistent statement is normally admissible to rehabilitate the witness only when the prior consistent statement tends to rebut an express or implied charge of "recent fabrication."