Relevance requirements for circumstantial evidence

United States v. Brothers Construction Company of Ohio, Inc., 219 F.3d 300, 310-311 (4th Cir. 2000) (upholding trial court's admission of the grand jury testimony of co-defendant Tri-State's officer as an admission by party's agent because (1) "[a]t the time....A statement by an agent or an employee who is not authorized to speak on behalf of the agent's principal or the employee's employer may nonetheless be treated as the statement of the principal or the employer and thus as a vicarious admission that is exempt from the prohibition against hearsay; but such a statement can be imputed to the principal or the employer only if the statement, if by an agent, is about a matter within the scope of the agent's agency or, if by an employee, the statement is about a matter within the scope of the employee's employment.

Cf. Los Angeles News Service v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc., 305 F.3d 924, 925 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding, in plaintiff independent newsgathering organization's action against defendant broadcasting company for copyright infringement, that the trial court....Not every human utterance is capable of amounting to hearsay. Only an utterance that contains an assertion can amount to a "statement" for purposes of Federal Rule of Evidence 801(a) or hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(c).

United States v. Handy, 668 F.2d 407, 408 (8th Cir. 1982) (upholding trial court's admission of Miranda's statement describing a conversation between himself, Engleman and defendant as an adoptive admission because....An adoptive admission is exempt from the prohibition against hearsay evidence.