Does the hearsay exception for "learned treatises" -- the hearsay exception for a statement in authoritative and reliable treatises, periodicals, or similar literature -- require that a testifying expert have relied on the statement in the literature or that a testifying expert's attention have been called to the statement in the literature?

Cf. Schindler v. Joseph C. Seiler & Synthes Spine Co., L.P., 474 F.3d 1008, 1011-1012 (7th Cir. 2007) (holding, in plaintiff physician's diversity action against defendants individual and employer, that plaintiff's testimony about what Dr. White had said to him....For purposes of the hearsay exceptions created by Federal Rule of Evidence 804 or a comparable State rule, a declarant is "unavailable" within the meaning of Rule 804(a) or a comparable State rule if the declarant testifies to a lack of memory of the subject matter of the declarant's statement; but a declarant is not "unavailable" if such claim of lack of memory is due to the procurement or wrongdoing of the proponent of a statement for the purpose of preventing the witness from attending or testifying.

Marra v. Philadelphia Housing Authority, 497 F.3d 286, 298-299 (3d Cir. 2007) (holding, in plaintiff supervisors' unlawful retaliation action against defendant state agency, that the trial court properly admitted plaintiff's testimony....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. United States v. Levine, 477 F.3d 596, 602-603 (8th Cir. 2007) (alternative holding: combination of accused's failing business together with lavish "lifestyle" of accused and some of his employees was relevant and admissible to show motive for criminal acquisition of financial data).Poverty may be relevant to the question of the doing of an act (such as robbery) by showing motive (such as desire for money) for the act.