If a treatise, periodical, or similar literature is shown to be reliable and authoritative on a topic, under some circumstances a statement in such literature about the topic falls within an exception to the prohibition against the admission of hearsay evidence.

United States v. Platero, 72 F.3d 806, 814-816 (10th Cir. 1995) (reversing conviction for aggravated sexual assault because the trial court's exclusion of evidence of victim's past sexual behavior with another companion violated accused's constitutional rights).The sexual history or predisposition of the alleged victim is admissible if its exclusion would violate a criminal defendant's constitutional rights.

See Hilao v. Estate of Marcos, 103 F.3d 767, 775 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding, in plaintiff torture victims' action against defendant estate of Ferdinand Marcos for damages, that the trial court properly admitted statements of....A statement is imputed to a principal or to an employer and is treated as the principal's or employer's vicarious admission (which, like other admissions is exempt from the hearsay rule) if the principal or employer is a party, the statement is offered against the principal or party, the statement is a statement by the party's agent or employee about a matter within the scope of the agent's agency or the employee's employment, and the statement is made during the principal-agent or employer-employee relationship.

United States v. Iglesias, 535 F.3d 150, 159 (3d Cir. 2008) (upholding trial court's admission of Shisler's prior testimony from the suppression hearing as a prior inconsistent statement because "the admissibility of....A prior inconsistent statement is exempt from the federal hearsay rule pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(A) or by a comparable State rule only if the prior statement is in fact inconsistent with the declarant's testimony at the trial or with some other statement of the declarant that is admitted into evidence pursuant to some hearsay exemption or exception.