Particular privileges based on non-constitutional law

Cf. United States v. Jackson, 208 F.3d 633, 637 (7th Cir. 2000) (upholding trial court's exclusion of internet postings as a hearsay exception under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6) as business records of the supremacy....There is a hearsay exception for a memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in any form, of acts, events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, made at or near the time by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge, if kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity of a business, institution, association, profession, occupation, or calling if it was the regular practice of that business, institution, association, profession, occupation, or calling to make the memorandum, report, record or data compilation, unless the source of information or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate lack of trustworthiness.

United States v. Vega, 285 F.3d 256, 262 (3d Cir. 2002) (upholding trial court's admission into evidence of the 1997 drug conspiracy because "based on this evidence, a jury could reasonably conclude that the alleged 1997 drug conspiracy occurred, and that [accused] was a participant in it." ...Evidence of another crime, wrong, or act is admissible if there is sufficient evidence to support a finding by a reasonable juror that the other crime, wrong, or act occurred. Clear and convincing evidence is unnecessary; "sufficient" means only that there must be enough evidence to make the other crime, wrong, or act relevant.

Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) ("Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith.").A person's other crimes, wrongs, or acts are inadmissible if they are offered to show the character, or propensity, of that person in order to show that that person engaged in some specific behavior on a specific occasion.