Expert, scientific, or specialized evidence satisfies the requirements under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 or comparable State rules for the admissibility of expert, scientific, or specialized evidence, only if the expert, scientific, or specialized field or method is shown to be reliable.

United States v. Summers, 414 F.3d 1287, pin? (10th Cir. 2005) ("'Viewing the evidence in its entirety, a conviction must be grounded on more than a suspicion of guilt. United States v. Fox, 902 F.2d 1508, 1513 (10th Cir.....Although proof of criminal guilt can rest on chains of inferences, such pyramided inferences must be reasonable.

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 compulsory process and the broader federal constitutional right to present a defense in a criminal trial.

United States v. Brito, 427 F.3d 53, 61-63 (1st Cir. 2005) (upholding trial court's admission of the redacted tape of the second 911 call of an anonymous caller as excited utterance because (1) "the immediacy of the....A statement falls within the hearsay exception created by Federal Rule of Evidence 803(2) or a comparable State rule for excited utterances, only if the declarant (the maker of the statement) was under the stress of the startling event or condition when he or she made the statement that relates to that startling event or condition.