In an important sense all evidence -- including eyewitness evidence about an event -- is circumstantial: no evidence is direct evidence of anything and the probative value of all evidence depends on multiple inferences.

United States v. Tedder, 403 F.3d 836, 839 (7th Cir. 2005) (conviction of an attorney for conspiring to defraud the US by assisting a wagering enterprise, plus money laundering related to his participation in an offshore gambling scheme;defendant argued that the judge should have allowed him to present...Under some circumstances untruthfulness is admissible to impeach a witness.

Levin v. United States, 119 U.S.App.D.C. 156,, 338 F.2d 265, pin? (D.C. Cir. 1964) (religiously-motivated pattern of conduct does not constitute habit and is therefore inadmissible character evidence; part of the reason such behavior is not habit, the court said, is that such...If behavior is largely volitional rather than semi-volitional or semi-automatic, it is hot habit.

Cf. United States v. $125,938.62 Proceeds of Certificates of Deposit, 537 F.3d 1287, 1292 (11th Cir. 2008) (holding, in government's civil forfeiture action involving funds stolen from the Nicaraguan treasury, that evidence of Nicaraguan President's judgment of....An exception to the hearsay rule applies to the following records of government offices and agencies: (A) public records that set forth the activities of the government office or agency; (B) public records that set forth observations that a government office or agency was required to make and report but this exception does not apply in criminal cases to observations of police officers and other law enforcement personnel; or (C) in civil actions and proceedings and in criminal cases when offered against the government, factual findings resulting from an investigation made pursuant to authority granted by law, unless the sources of information or other circumstances indicate the untrustworthiness of such findings.