Background evidence is admissible even if it is technically irrelevant under Federal Rule of Evidence 401 or a comparable State rule.

Lewis v. United States, 365 F.2d 672, 674-675 (10th Cir. 1966) (circumstantial evidence can be as strong as testimonial evidence; testimonial evidence as well as circumstantial evidence can point to a different possible inference).Circumstantial evidence is not an inferior grade of evidence: it can be as strong as (or stronger than) any other kind of evidence, including eyewitness evidence, physical evidence, or scientific evidence.

United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 757-758 (5th Cir. 2008) (upholding trial court's admission of the redacted factual resume of defendant's brother which stated that defendant delivered the methamphetamine as a prior....A positive or direct contradiction between the testimony at the trial or proceeding and a prior statement is not required to make the prior statement "inconsistent" for purposes of the hearsay exemption created by Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(A) or by a comparable State rule. It is sufficient if there is a disparity between the two statements such that a reasonable person might question the credibility of the person who made them.

Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(C) ("A statement is not hearsay if-- (2)Admission by party-opponent. The statement is offered against a party and is ... (C) a statement by a person authorized by the party to make a statement concerning the subject").A statement of an employee or agent is treated as an employer's or principal's statement and, if offered against the employer or principal, it is an admission that is exempt from the hearsay rule if the employer or principal authorized its employee or agent to speak about the matter that the employee or agent spoke about and if the statement was made during the employment or agency relationship.