Hearsay evidence is inadmissible.

United States v. Bailey, 270 F.3d 83, 87 (1st Cir. 2001) (upholding trial court's admission of agent's testimony about defendant's actions following her agreement to cooperate because it did not constitute hearsay....If some human utterance has legal significance under applicable substantive law and the utterance is offered to establish that a verbal act having such legal significance has taken place, the utterance is not hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(c) or a "statement" for purposes of Federal Rule of Evidence 801(a)(2) even if the utterance also contains an assertion or appears to contain an an assertion.

United States v. Joy, 192 F.3d 761, 766 (7th Cir. 1999) (upholding trial court's admission of the 911 recording and transcripts of the recording as excited utterances because all three elements were satisfied: "(1)....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.

Cf. United States v. Robinson, 161 F.3d 463, 467-468 (7th Cir. 1998) (upholding trial court's admission into evidence of the April 18 armed bank robbery where such evidence demonstrated the similarities between the manner in which the armed bank robberies were carried out, thus proving identity by...Other wrongs or crimes that show an unusual pattern of conduct by a person are not barred by the prohibition against the use of character or disposition to show conduct on a particular occasion.