Hearsay evidence is inadmissible.

United States v. Arredondo, 349 F.3d 310, 315 (6th Cir. 2003) (reversing contempt conviction because, even though Plachta's habit testimony was admissible to show that he acted in conformity with that habit, defendant's "testimony about Plachta's failure to convey the first plea offer certainly was not...The habit of a natural person is admissible to show the person's conduct on a particular occasion.

Cf. Siegal v. American Honda Motor Co., 921 F.2d 15, 16 (1st Cir. 1990) (holding, in plaintiff consumer's action against defendant manufacturer for product liability, that the altered motorcycle was properly excluded into evidence....A thing or matter is sufficiently authenticated to be admissible in evidence if the authenticating evidence submitted to the trial court is sufficient -- strong enough -- to permit a reasonable jury or reasonable trier of fact to conclude that the proffered thing or matter is authentic, that the proffered thing or matter is what its proponent claims it is.

Cf. United States v. Lawrence, 349 F.3d 109, 117 (3d Cir. 2003) (upholding trial court's exclusion into evidence of the victim's hospital bed identification of another suspect as a dying declaration because defendant failed....The hearsay exception for dying declarations applies only if the declarant believed that his or her own death was imminent when he or she made the statement.