To be admissible, prior events or accidents must be substantially similar to those at issue in trial.

United States v. Lelra Plaza, 188 F. Supp. 2d 549, 572-573 (E.D. Pa. 2002) (in an earlier order and opinion in this case Judge Pollak had limited expert opinion based on latent fingerprints; Judge Pollak's ruling occasioned much comment and controversy; in this opinion Judge Pollak explains why he...A history of judicial acceptance of an expert or scientific discipline or method is a factor that a trial judge or court can consider in weighing whether the discipline or method is sufficiently reliable to be admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 or a comparable State rule.

Cf. Dick v. Phone Directories Company, Inc., 397 F.3d 1256, 1266 (10th Cir. 2005) (holding, in plaintiff employee's retaliation action against defendant employer, that the trial court properly excluded plaintiff's statement about her....There is a hearsay exception for reputation of a person's character among associates or in the community.

McDonough v. City of Quincy, 452 F.3d 8, 21 (1st Cir. 2006) (holding, in plaintiff police officer's unlawful retaliation action against defendant city, that the trial court properly admitted the out-of-court statements....A statement is imputed to a principal or to an employer and is treated as the principal's or employer's vicarious admission (which, like other admissions is exempt from the hearsay rule) if the principal or employer is a party, the statement is offered against the principal or party, the statement is a statement by the party's agent or employee about a matter within the scope of the agent's agency or the employee's employment, and the statement is made during the principal-agent or employer-employee relationship.