The prosecution must establish each essential element of a criminal offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

United Stetes v. Krezdorn, 69 F.2d 1327, pin? (5th Cir. 1981) (but discussion of the point was perhaps technically dictum because the other bad act evidence was said to be admissible [under second sentence of Rule 404(b)] to show a common plan).Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) does not prohibit a criminal defendant from offering other crimes or wrongs of non-defendants circumstantially.

Cf. United States v. Serrano, 434 F.3d 1003, 1005 (7th Cir. 2006) (upholding trial court's admission of the insurance documents as non-hearsay evidence because "the documents [were] not introduced for the truth....A statement can be hearsay only if the statement is "offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted." The purpose for which a statement is offered depends on the purpose of the offeror of the statement. Hence, a statement is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted if the offeror (normally trial counsel) seeks to use the statement to show that the matter or proposition asserted by the declarant (the maker of the statement) is in fact true.

United States v. Cerno, 529 F.3d 926, pin? (10th Cir. 2008) (conviction for aggravated sexual abuse in Indian country; defendant, invoking Fed.R.Evid. 403, contended that his conviction must be reversed because the district court improperly allowed the prosecutor to question...Subject to limitations, a witness may be impeached by a prior inconsistent statement.