Evidence of another crime, wrong, or act is admissible only if the trial court finds that clear and convincing evidence shows that the other crime, wrong, or act occurred.

United States v. Bahe, 128 F.3d 1440, 1441-1445 (10th Cir. 1997) (whether defendant's sexual acts with his spouse constituted "confidential communications" for purposes of the federal marital secrets privilege, the federal privilege for confidential marital communications; "Defendant James Bahe, Sr., an...Intimate sexual acts between marital partners constitute "confidential marital communications" for purposes of the marital secrets privilege, the confidential marital communications privilege.

Cf. Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, pin? (1967) ("[A] recognized ground of attack upon a conviction independent of any right to counsel claim" is that a pretrial eyewitness identification was 'so unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken...The federal constitutional guarantee of due process may limit the government's right to introduce unreliable hearsay evidence against a defendant in a criminal trial.

United States v. Banks, 405 F.3d 559, 570 (7th Cir. 2005) (upholding trial court's ruling which allowed testimony from witness on redirect examination about defendant's history of storing cocaine in her apartment because the cross-examination opened the door for such testimony).Although a character witness who testifies to the reputation of another person or gives an opinion of the character of another person cannot testify to specific instances of that person's conduct to bolster the character witness's testimony, an opposing party may question the character witness about specific instances of the person's conduct to show that the character witness' testimony about the character of the person was not well-founded.