Hearsay exceptions for various kinds of written records

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589-590, 592-593 (1993) ("The primary locus of this obligation is Rule 702, which clearly contemplates some degree of regulation of the subjects and theories about which an expert may testify. 'If _scientific_, technical, or other specialized...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.

Fed. R. Evid. 902(11) ("The original or a duplicate of a domestic record of regularly conducted activity that would be admissible under Rule 803(6) if accompanied by a written declaration of its custodian or other qualified person, in a manner complying with any Act of Congress or rule prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to...Federal Rule of Evidence 902(11) provides for self-authentication for the original or a duplicate of a domestic business record that satisfies the admissibility requirements ofFederal Rule of Evidence 803(6) if the record is accompanied by a written declaration of its custodian or other qualified person, in a manner complying with any federal statute or any rule prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority, certifying that the record (A) was made at or near the time of the occurrence of the matters set forth by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge of those matters; (B) was kept in the course of the regularly conducted activity; and (C) was made by the regularly conducted activity as a regular practice.

United States v. McHorse, 179 F.3d 889, 902 (10th Cir. 1999) (upholding the trial court's ruling which allowed the prosecutor's inquiry on cross-examination of accused and his son on specific incidents involving his daughter and half-sister because their testimony of accused's character or pertinent trait...Although a character witness who testifies to the reputation of another person or gives an opinion of the character of another person cannot testify to specific instances of that person's conduct to bolster the character witness's testimony, an opposing party may question the character witness about specific instances of the person's conduct to show that the character witness' testimony about the character of the person was not well-founded.