Does the general expert acceptance requirement for the admissibility of expert evidence apply only to scientific evidence and is it inapplicable apply to non-scientific evidence or to experience-based expert evidence?

United States v. Payne, 437 F.3d 540, 546-547 (6th Cir. 2006) (upholding trial court's admission into evidence of co-conspirator's out-of-court statements because "each qualified for an exclusion from the hearsay....If a statement is made by a party and the statement is offered against the party that made the statement, the federal law of evidence characterizes such a statement as non-hearsay and exempts it from the hearsay prohibition found in Federal Rule of Evidence 802 or a comparable State rule even though the exempted statement otherwise satisfies the definition of hearsay given in Rule 801(c) or a comparable State rule.

United States v. de la Cruz-Paulino, 61 F.3d 986, 999 n. 9 (1st Cir. 1995) ("in the context of review of a motion for acquittal, 'no legal distinction exists between circumstantial and direct evidence.' United States v. Sutton, 801 F.2d 1346, 1358 (D.C.Cir.1986).").In an important sense all evidence -- including eyewitness evidence about an event -- is circumstantial: no evidence is direct evidence of anything and the probative value of all evidence depends on multiple inferences.

United States v. Murphy, 193 F.3d 1, 6 n.2 (1st Cir. 1999) (upholding trial court's ruling which allowed the government to introduce detective Brazil's "instruction" evidence because it was admissible non-hearsay as....A statement is not hearsay if the statement is offered to show a person's belief or state of mind and the relevance of the person's belief or state of mind does not depend on the truth or falsity of the statement.