A field or method that is offered as as a scientific field or method satisfies the requirements for the admissibility of evidence under Federal Rule 702 or a comparable State rule only if the field or method is shown to be genuinely scientific.

Cf. DeGeorge v. United States District Court, 219 F.3d 930, 937-938 (9th Cir. 2000) (defendant sought writ of mandate ordering district court to dismiss charges against defendant before trial; "Section 3292(a)(1) [of Title 18 of the United States Code] does not define 'evidence'; thus, we interpret...There is no generally-accepted general definition of "evidence."

United States v. Duran Samaniego, 345 F.3d 1280, 1283 (11th Cir. 2003) (upholding trial court's admission of the apology of the boxer's brother-in-law [wherein he admitted having stolen Duran's belts] as a statement against....A statement falls within the federal hearsay exception for statements against interest only if the statement at the time of its making so far contrary to the declarant's pecuniary or proprietary interest, or so far tended to subject the declarant to civil or criminal liability, or to render invalid a claim by the declarant against another, that a reasonable person in the declarant's position would not have made the statement unless believing it to be true.

Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319, pin? (2006).The right to due process guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments prohibits the exclusion of probative exculpatory evidence in criminal trials when exclusion of such evidence is unreasonable, arbitrary, or disproportionate.