The trial court has broad discretion to limit the length of interrogation to prevent excessive consumption of time and waste of resources.

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.

SEC v. Ficken, 546 F.3d 45, 53 (1st Cir. 2008) (holding, in plaintiff Commission's action against defendant broker for concealing his identity and that of his clients while trading shares of mutual funds,....The hearsay exceptions created by Federal Rule of Evidence 804 or a comparable State rule apply only if the declarant (the maker of the statement) is unavailable to testify at the trial or proceedings at which the declarant's statement is offered.

Hirst v. Gertzen, 676 F.2d 1252, 1263 (9th Cir. 1982) (holding, in civil rights action against county, city, and government officials for prisoner's death in jail, that evidence of deputy's prior acts of violence which was introduced to establish the identity of the murderer, was inadmissible because even...The negligent or incompetent character of an agent or employee is an essential element of a negligent entrustment claim. If the negligent character or incompetence of the agent or employee is at issue, evidence about the negligence or incompetence of the agent or employee is not barred by the rule prohibiting the use of a person's character to show the person's conduct.