There is disagreement whether Rule 404(b)'s prohibition against the circumstantial use of other crimes, wrongs, or acts applies in civil actions.

United States v. Maliszewski, 161 F.3d 992, 1009 (6th Cir. 1998) (upholding trial court's admission of the Mireles testimony [about defendant's repeated statements made by her dead husband] because at the time of the trial,....For purposes of the hearsay exceptions created by Federal Rule of Evidence 804 or a comparable State rule a declarant is "unavailable" within the meaning of Rule 804(b) or a comparable State rule if the declarant is unable to be present or to testify at the hearing because of death or then existing physical or mental illness or infirmity; but a declarant is not "unavailable" if the declarant's absence is due to the procurement or wrongdoing of the proponent of a statement for the purpose of preventing the witness from attending or testifying.

United States v. Munoz-Franco, 487 F.3d 25, 38-39 (1st Cir. 2007) (upholding trial court's admission of the Board and Executive Committee meeting minutes as business records because its trustworthiness was established as "the....Document must have been prepared in the normal course of business.

Montana v. Egelhoff, 518 U.S. 37, pin? (1996).The exclusion of exculpatory evidence in a criminal trial does not violate the due constitutional right to present a defense if the grounds for exclusion are not arbitrary or disproportionate.