This is a cross reference. Click here to make the jump.

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 68 (2004) ("Whatever else the term ['testimonial'] covers, it applies at a minimum to prior testimony at a preliminary hearing, before a grand jury, or at a former trial").If a statement was made in another judicial proceeding and the statement is offered against a defendant in a criminal trial, the statement - if offered to establish the statement is true - is "testimonial" and the statement is therefore subject to the right of confrontation guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

United Capitol Insurance Co. v. Pontotoc, 196 F.3d 1257, pin? (5th Cir. 1999) (insurer sought to recover insurance proceeds paid to insured after a fire; insurer sought to show that "acts and omissions" of insured caused the fire; insurer objected to admission of expert...That a certain physical object was involved in the events at issue rather than some other physical object or that some physical object was in some condition rather than in some other condition may be a condition, within the meaning of Federal Rule of Evidence 104(b), that affects the relevance of the physical object or the relevance of evidence about the physical object.

United Stetes v. Krezdorn, 69 F.2d 1327, pin? (5th Cir. 1981) (but discussion of the point was perhaps technically dictum because the other bad act evidence was said to be admissible [under second sentence of Rule 404(b)] to show a common plan).Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) does not prohibit a criminal defendant from offering other crimes or wrongs of non-defendants circumstantially.