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

Cf. United States v. Nebraska Beef, Ltd., 194 F. Supp. 2d 949, 957 (D. Neb. 2002) (holding, in defendants' motions to dismiss indictment for immigration related offenses, that their Sixth Amendment right to Compulsory Process was violated....The prohibition, grounded in the Compulsory Process Clause, against deliberate government action that deprives a criminal defendant of the relevant and material exculpatory testimony of a witness may effectively limit the government's use of hearsay evidence against a criminal defendant.

Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 58 (1987) (accused charged with sexual offenses against his daughter; held, accused had constitutional right "to have the CYS [Children and Youth Services] file [which was confidential under state law] reviewed by the trial court to determine whether it contains...Although sparse United States Supreme Court dicta and precedent suggest that nonconstitutional privilege rules may have to yield to a criminal defendant's federal constitutional rights, except for the specific and rare circumstances in which the Court has said or suggested that must happen, it is unknown when such privilege rules must yield to a criminal defendant's constitutional rights such as the right to due process and the right to present a defense.

United States v. Newell, 315 F.3d 510, 522-523 (5th Cir. 2002) (upholding trial court's admission of the handwritten notes of defendant's in-house accountant as a state of mind exception because (1) "the notes were....To fall within the hearsay exception provided by Federal Rule of Evidence 803(3) or a comparable State rule for person's present internal states, the declarant's state of mind must be shown to be relevant to an issue in the case.