Witness impeachment

United States v. Mills, 895 F.2d 897, 907 (2d Cir. 1990) (upholding trial court's admission of accused's 1982 arrest and conviction for counterfeiting as proof of intent and identity where accused claimed absence of intent in accepting the bag of counterfeit bills, and the government, on rebuttal, showed...If another crime or wrong is offered under the second sentence of Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) to show the identity of an actor, wrongdoer, or defendant (e.g., to show that a criminal defendant rather than someone else committed the crime for which defendant is on trial), the other crime or wrong and the act, wrong, or crime at issue at trial must have been committed in a distinctive as well as similar fashion.

McMillan v. Sheraton Chicago Hotel & Towers, 0 F.3d 0, pin? (7th Cir. 2009) ("The plaintiff must prove the 'jurisdictional facts by a preponderance of the evidence. Meridian Sec. Ins. Co. v. Sadowski, 441 F.3d 536, 543 (7th Cir.2006). To satisfy this burden, a party must do...The burden of proof (including the burden of production and the burden of persuasion) on factual issues other than essential elements of a claim or an affirmative defense may be allocated in a variety of ways and the burden of proof can also vary.

Cole v. Tansy, 926 F.2d 955, 958 (10th Cir. 1991) (upholding trial court's admission of the unidentified witness's statement against petitioner as an excited utterance because all three requirements were met:....A statement can qualify as an excited utterance for purposes of the hearsay exception created by by Federal Rule of Evidence 803(2) or a comparable State rule only if the declarant (the maker of the statement) personally perceived the exciting event or condition to which his or her statement relates.