Whether expert evidence based on or involving neuroscience, cognitive science, computer science, or artificial intelligence is sufficiently reliable to satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Evidence 702 or comparable State rules for the admissibility of expert evidence

Michelson v. United States, 335 U.S. 469, 475-476 (1948) ("Courts that follow the common law tradition almost unanimously have come to disallow resort by the prosecution to any kind of evidence of a defendant's evil character to establish a probability of guilt. Not that the law invests the defendant with...A criminal defendant's criminal propensity to commit cannot be used to show that defendant committed the crime or crimes for which he or she is on trial.

United States v. Jordan, 722 F.2d 353, 358 (7th Cir. 1983) (upholding trial court's ruling which allowed introduction of accused's prior bad acts or prior arrests because the accused "had opened the door to this line of inquiry by putting in issue his reputation for the traits of peaceful and law-abiding...If a criminal defendant offers evidence of his or her character circumstantially - to show he or she did not commit the crime charged -- the prosecution can offer rebutting evidence of defendant's character.

United States v. Kennedy, 32 F.3d 876, 885-886 (4th Cir. 1994) (upholding trial court's admission of witness's testimony about accused's drug distribution activities because it was "proof of the existence and structure of the charged drug distribution conspiracy" which provided "the jury with background...Other crimes, wrongs, or acts are admissible and do not violate the prohibition against the use of character to show conduct if such acts are admissible to show the context of an event at issue at trial or to tell the full story or an intelligible story of a series of events at issue at trial.