Federal Rule of Evidence 803(5) or a comparable State rule creates a hearsay exception for a memorandum or record concerning a matter about which a witness once had knowledge but now has insufficient recollection to enable the witness to testify fully and accurately, shown to have been made or adopted by the witness when the matter was fresh in the witness' memory and to reflect that knowledge correctly.

Bear Stops v. United States, 339 F.3d 777, 781-782 (8th Cir. 2003) (upholding trial court's admission of the alleged hearsay evidence because there was no Confrontation Clause violation, as "[defendant] had the opportunity to....The admission of a statement made other than at the trial does not violate the right of confrontation guaranteed to a criminal defendant by the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution if the maker of the statement -- the declarant -- testifies at the trial.

United States v. Washington, 434 F.3d 7, 14-15 (1st Cir. 2006) (upholding trial court's ruling which allowed agent Genese to testify about informant's prior statement [that the name of the person from whom he had purchased....A prior statement of a witness is exempt from the prohibition against hearsay evidence if the prior statement is consistent with the witness' testimony at the trial or hearing at which the prior statement is offered, the prior statement is offered to rebut a express or implied charge of recent fabrication or motive, and the witness who made the prior statement testifies and is subject to cross-examination at the trial or hearing at which the prior statement is offered.

United States v. Robinson, 161 F.3d 463, 467-468 (7th Cir. 1998) (upholding trial court's admission into evidence of the April 18 armed bank robbery where such evidence demonstrated the similarities between the manner in which the armed bank robberies were carried out, thus proving identity by...If another crime or wrong is offered under the second sentence of Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) to show the identity of an actor, wrongdoer, or defendant (e.g., to show that a criminal defendant rather than someone else committed the crime for which defendant is on trial), the other crime or wrong and the act, wrong, or crime at issue at trial must have been committed in a distinctive as well as similar fashion.