In a criminal trial accused may offer a pertinent character trait of a victim to show the victim's conduct on a particular occasion; i.e., accused may use victim's character "circumstantially," as "circumstantial" evidence of victim's conduct on a specific occasion.

Fed. R. Evid. 801(d) ("A statement is not hearsay if-- (1) Prior statement by witness. The declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is (A) inconsistent with the declarant's testimony, and was given under oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial,...A prior inconsistent statement is exempt from the federal hearsay rule pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(A) or by a comparable State rule only if the prior statement is in fact inconsistent with the declarant's testimony at the trial or with some other statement of the declarant that is admitted into evidence pursuant to some hearsay exemption or exception.

Fed. R. Evid. 1003(1) ("A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original unless (1) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original").A duplicate of a writing is sometimes admissible to the same extent as an original writing to prove the contents of the original, but this exception for a duplicate is inapplicable if there is a genuine dispute about the authenticity of the original writing.

United States v. Ryan, 969 F.2d 238, 239-240 (7th Cir. 1992) (upholding trial court's admission into evidence of the computer print-outs because they were admissible as self-authenticating as they "were certified United....Federal Rule of Evidence 902(1) and comparable State rules provide that a document bearing the seal of a domestic governmental body and a signature purporting to be an attestation or execution is sufficiently authenticated to be admissible. Such a document is "self-authenticating."