Whether expert evidence based on or involving various kinds of social science is sufficiently to satisfy the requirements under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 or comparable State rules for the admissibility of expert evidence

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.

Fed. R. Evid. 803(2) ("A statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition.").To qualify as an excited utterance under the hearsay exception created by Federal Rule of Evidence 803(2) or a comparable State rule, a statement need not be contemporaneous with the startling event or condition to which the statement relates: the statement may be made after the startling event or condition.

United States v. Martin, 59 F.3d 767, 769-770 (8th Cir. 1995) (upholding trial court's admission of Wroten's testimony [which described Hunter's statements about his telephone conversation with defendant] as an excited....Federal Rule of Evidence 803(2) or a comparable State rule creates a hearsay exception for an utterance that relates to a startling event or condition and is made while the declarant -- the maker of the statement -- is excited as a result of the starling event or condition.