Federal Rule of Evidence 414 and comparable rules in a few States create an exception to the prohibition against "circumstantial" use of character -- the prohibition against the use of character to show conduct -- by providing that in a criminal trial for child molestation or child sexual abuse, evidence of the defendant's commission of another offense or offenses of child molestation or child sexual abuse is relevant and admissible.

McDonough v. City of Quincy, 452 F.3d 8, 21 (1st Cir. 2006) (holding, in plaintiff police officer's unlawful retaliation action against defendant city, that the trial court properly admitted the out-of-court statements....A statement is imputed to a principal or to an employer and is treated as the principal's or employer's vicarious admission (which, like other admissions is exempt from the hearsay rule) if the principal or employer is a party, the statement is offered against the principal or party, the statement is a statement by the party's agent or employee about a matter within the scope of the agent's agency or the employee's employment, and the statement is made during the principal-agent or employer-employee relationship.

United States v. Cawthorn, 429 F.3d 793, 801-802 (8th Cir. 2005) ("The district court here denied Cawthorn the ability to ask prosecution witnesses questions such as ?Do you lie to authorities??; ?Would you lie to authorities to get something for it??; and ?Do you generally lie?? These questions are...During the cross-examination of a witness -- and during any examination of a witness who is a permissible target for impeachment -- the witness may be asked about specific acts that are indicative of the witness's untruthfulness if such acts are relevant to and probative of the witness' truthfulness or untruthfulness, unless the trial court determines that the acts inquired into are unduly prejudicial.

Dunn v. Perrin, 570 F.2d 21, pin? (1st Cir. 1978) ("strong and abiding conviction" jury instruction disapproved).[generally disapproved]