Is scientific or expert evidence admissible only if the expert evidence is generally acceptable to scientists or experts or must the trial court make an independent determination of the validity and reliability of such evidence?

United States v. Stover, 329 F.3d 859, 869-870 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (upholding trial court's admission of two videotapes and two audiotapes because "the recordings were offered for something other than their truth" as it was....A verbal act is an utterance or statement that has legal significance under applicable substantive law simply because of the making of the utterance or statement.

Fed. R. Evid. 803(2) ("A statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition.").A statement falls within the hearsay exception provided by Federal Rule of Evidence 803(2) only if the statement is related to a startling event or condition.

Cleveland v. KFC National Management Co., 948 F. Supp. 62, 65 (N.D. Ga. 1996) (holding, in employee's action against employer for sexual harassment, that evidence of employer's past sexual misconduct was probative as it corroborated plaintiff's story ).Federal Rule of Evidence 415 and comparable rules in some states create an exception to the prohibition against "circumstantial" character evidence, the prohibition in Federal Rule against the use of character to show conduct. Rules such as Rule 415 provide that in a civil action which a claim rests on a party's alleged conduct constituting a criminal sexual assault or child molestation, evidence of that party's commission of another offense or offenses of sexual assault or child molestation is relevant and admissible.