The admissibility of a person's habit or an organization's routine practice does not depend on corroboration or on the presence or absence of eyewitnesses.

Smith v. United States, 161 U.S. 85, 88 (1896) ("that the deceased had the general reputation of being a quarrelsome and dangerous person was competent, especially if his character in this respect was known to the defendant").Evidence that would be prohibited character evidence if offered to show a person's conduct is not barred by the character evidence rule if it is offered to show some other matter such as another person's belief.

Fed. R. Evid. 404(a)(3) (exception for "[e]vidence of the character of a witness, as provided in rules 607, 608, and 609").Under some circumstances a witness' specific acts or other statements are admissible to impeach or rehabilitate a witness by showing the propensity of the witness for untruthfulness or truthfulness.

Union Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Chrysler Corp., 793 F.2d 1, 8-9 (1st Cir. 1986) (holding, in plaintiff lending company's action against defendants computer leasing company and another lessee company for breach of lease agreement, that the....A statement is imputed to a principal or to an employer and is treated as the principal's or employer's vicarious admission (which, like other admissions is exempt from the hearsay rule) if the principal or employer is a party, the statement is offered against the principal or party, the statement is a statement by the party's agent or employee about a matter within the scope of the agent's agency or the employee's employment, and the statement is made during the principal-agent or employer-employee relationship.