In trials of some charges criminal defendants have the burden of proof on some affirmative defenses.

Malek v. Federal Insurance Co., 994 F.2d 49, 53 (2d Cir. 1993) (holding, in plaintiff insureds' action against defendant insurers for recovery of proceeds of a fire insurance policy, that the trial court erroneously....The hearsay exception for "business records" created by Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6) or a comparable State rule applies only (i) the record is based on the personal knowledge of an entrant with a business duty to record the event or other such matter or (ii) if the record of the event is based on the personal knowledge of a person who had a business duty to transmit the information about the event or other matter to the person or persons who made the record and had a business duty to do so. A person has a "business duty" if the person has a duty to an organization by reason of law, contract, employment relationship, or other such matter to record or report an event, condition, opinion, or other matter to which the business records exception to the hearsay rule may apply.

United States v. Smith, 230 F.3d 300, 307 (7th Cir. 2000) (conviction for witness retaliation; accused challenged district court's exclusion from evidence of victim's prior misdemeanor convictions for domestic battery and theft; the court of appeals rejected accused's argument that the domestic battery...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.

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 59 (2004) ("The [Confrontation] Clause also does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted.").The Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause places no limits on the admission at trial of nonhearsay statements made prior to or outside of trial.