The absence of similar events or accidents has been held to be admissible under the circumstances to show that an event or accident at issue in a trial did not occur.

Cf. Anderson v. United States, 417 U.S. 211, 218-219 (1974) (upholding trial court's admission of the Tomblin and Browning election contest testimony because "prior testimony was accordingly admissible simply if....The co-conspirator exemption from the hearsay rule applies only if the trial court concludes that a preponderance of of the evidence shows that the statement of the alleged co-conspirator was made during the conspiracy rather than before or after the conspiracy.

Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44, pin? (1987) (defendant was charged with killing her husband; the pretrial hypnotic session dealt with the precise manner in which the defendant's shooting of her husband....A per se rule barring a criminal defendant from testifying about a matter about which he or she was previously hypnotized is unconstitutional.

TAMBOURINE COMERCIO INTERNACIONAL SA v. SOLOWSKY, 0 F.3d 0, pin? (11th Cir. 2009) ("This Circuit does recognize the concept of 'curative admissibility,' also called 'opening the door.' See, e.g., Bearint ex rel. Bearint v. Dorell Juvenile Group, Inc., 389 F.3d 1339, 1349 (11th...If a trial court admits inadmissible evidence but later in the trial recognizes its error, the trial court has the discretion to allow an opponent to introduce otherwise inadmissible evidence to "cure" or ameliorate the harm done by the opponent's use of inadmissible evidence but the trial can or should allow the admission of curative evidence only if it concludes that the admission of curative evidence will not cause undue prejudice, delay, or confusion and will not do more harm than good to the goal of accurate fact finding.