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

Fed. R. Evid. 408 ("... (b) Permitted uses.--This rule does not require exclusion if the evidence is offered for purposes not prohibited by subdivision (a). Examples of permissible purposes include proving a witness's bias or prejudice; negating a contention of undue delay; and proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or...Although settlement negotiations and offers are inadmissible (i) to show the validity or invalidity of a claim when validity is in dispute, (ii) to show the amount of damages when the amount is in dispute, or (iii) to impeach by showing a prior inconsistent statement or specific contradiction, settlements, settlement offers, and settlement negotiations are admissible if they are offered for other purposes.

United States v. Anifowoshe, 307 F.3d 643, 647 (7th Cir. 2002) (upholding trial court's admission of accused's state fraud conviction because the overwhelming and striking similarities between the acts involved in the state fraud and the acts involved in this case were probative of identity through modus...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.

United States v. Conroy, 424 F.3d 833, 839-840 (8th Cir. 2005) (upholding trial court's admission of victim Tail's prior consistent statements to a police officer because "[w]hile the statements admitted to rehabilitate....A prior statement of a witness is exempt from the prohibition against hearsay evidence if the prior statement is consistent with the witness' testimony at the trial or hearing at which the prior statement is offered, the prior statement is offered to rebut a express or implied charge of recent fabrication or motive, and the witness who made the prior statement testifies and is subject to cross-examination at the trial or hearing at which the prior statement is offered.