Evidence of another crime, wrong, or act is not barred by the prohibition against circumstantial use of character if such other crime, wrong, or act is offered to prove identity.

Fed. R. Evid. 807(B) (statement admissible under Rule 807 only if "the statement is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence which the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts").The hearsay exception created by Federal Rule of Evidence 807 or a comparable State rule applies only if the the affected statement is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence which the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts.

Cf. United States v. Sadler, 234 F.3d 368, 372-373 (8th Cir. 2000) (upholding trial court's exclusion of the testimony of defense witness about defendant's exculpatory prior statements because the requirements of Rule....A pretrial identification is exempt from the federal hearsay rule only if the declarant -- the person making the pretrial identification -- testifies at the trial.

Doe v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d 1258, 1269 (9th Cir. 2000) (upholding trial court's exclusion of accused's prior sexual misconduct because, even though such evidence was relevant, it was unduly prejudicial to the accused as the events were dissimilar and there was significant time lapse between the incidents ).Federal Rule of Evidence 415 and comparable rules in some states create an exception to the prohibition against "circumstantial" character evidence, the prohibition in Federal Rule against the use of character to show conduct. Rules such as Rule 415 provide that in a civil action which a claim rests on a party's alleged conduct constituting a criminal sexual assault or child molestation, evidence of that party's commission of another offense or offenses of sexual assault or child molestation is relevant and admissible.