The routine practice of an organization is admissible to show conduct on a specific occasion.

Fed. R. Evid. 1003 ("A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original unless (1) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original or (2) in the circumstances it would be unfair to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original.").A duplicate of an original is admissible to the same extent as the original if (1) there is no genuine question about the authenticity of the original, and (2) admission of the duplicate in lieu of the original is not unfair.

United States v. Weaver, 507 F.3d 178, 186-187 (3d Cir. 2007) (vacating trial court's order which erroneously excluded the September 4 conversation between a co-conspirator and her sister because the statements were made....A statement falls within the hearsay exemption for statements of co-conspirators only if the statement was made in furtherance of the conspiracy.

United States v. Seymour, 468 F.3d 378, 386-387 (6th Cir. 2006) (holding that evidence of victim's specific instances of conduct was inadmissible where such character was not an essential element of the charge against the defendant).When an exception makes the victim's character admissible, the testimony of a witness on direct examination about the victim's character must take the form of opinion or reputation and it cannot take the form of specific instances of victim's conduct.