The prohibition against the use of a person's character or disposition to show a person's conduct does not bar the use of character or propensity to show the routine behavior, or routine practice, of a business or other organization. More broadly stated, the prohibition against circumstantial use of character or propensity does not apply to the propensities, dispositions, or "character traits" of entities that are not natural persons.

Johnson v. Norris, 537 F.3d 840, 845-847 (8th Cir. 2008) (habeas corpus review of murder conviction and death sentence; trial court rejected criminal defendant's attempt to elicit and offer evidence protected by a state's psychotherapist-patient privilege; defendant argued "that his rights under the...Although sparse United States Supreme Court dicta and precedent suggest that nonconstitutional privilege rules may have to yield to a criminal defendant's federal constitutional rights, except for the specific and rare circumstances in which the Court has said or suggested that must happen, it is unknown when such privilege rules must yield to a criminal defendant's constitutional rights such as the right to compulsory process and the broader federal constitutional right to present a defense in a criminal trial.

Cf. United States v. Jones, 299 F.3d 103, 112-113 (2d Cir. 2002) (upholding trial court's admission of the testimony of Officer Moreland because "Chin's requirement that the [trial] court consider 'the....The right of confrontation guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States bars the introduction against a criminal defendant of testimonial hearsay by a nontestifying declarant unless (i) the absent declarant is unavailable to testify at trial and (ii) the defendant had an adequate opportunity to cross-examine the absent declarant prior to trial.

Breeding v. Massey, 378 F.2d 171, 181 (8th Cir. 1967) (holding, in an action for recovery of damages against tractor owner and tractor operator for injuries sustained by victim as a result of a collision, that evidence of operator's arrests, convictions, and pleas of guilty for driving while intoxicated...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.