Whether expert evidence based on or involving history is sufficiently reliable to be admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 or comparable State rules

United States v. Johnson, 495 F.3d 951, 970 (8th Cir. 2007) (upholding trial court's admission of the hearsay statements of the victim as well as defendant's former boyfriend because "the court reasonably found a....A defendant can forfeit the right of confrontation guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to defendants in both federal and state trials. Such forfeiture can occur if a defendant takes an action that prevents a witness from appearing and testifying at the defendant's trial.

United States v. Blum, 62 F.3d 63, 68 (2d Cir. 1995) (holding that evidence of witness's similar misconduct or wrongful acts was admissible where it was relevant to show third party's personal motive).Evidence of a criminal or wrongful act apart from the act that at issue at trial Is not barred by the prohibition against circumstantial use of character if intent, knowledge, mistake, or accident is a legally-material factual issue, the opposing party suggests the non-existence of knowledge or urges mistake or accident as a defense, and evidence of another crime, wrong, or act is offered to prove the knowledge or the absence of mistake or accident by a criminal defendant or other person.

Cf. United States v. Innamorati, 996 F.2d 456, 474-475 (1st Cir. 1993) (reversing conviction and remanding for resentencing because the trial court erred in admitting the grand jury testimony as it did not qualify as a declaration....Federal Rule of Evidence of Evidence 804(b)(3) or a comparable State rule creates a hearsay exception for a statement which was at the time of its making so far contrary to the declarant's pecuniary or proprietary interest, or so far tended to subject the declarant to civil or criminal liability, or to render invalid a claim by the declarant against another, that a reasonable person in the declarant's position would not have made the statement unless believing it to be true. A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered to exculpate the accused is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement.