The admissibility of habit does not depend on corroboration.

Cf. United States v. Hamilton, 413 F.3d 1138, 1142-1143 (10th Cir. 2005) (upholding trial court's ruling that the computer-generated header information did not constitute hearsay evidence because "the header information was....A "statement" for purposes of the hearsay prohibition against the admission of hearsay statements is (1) an oral or written assertion or (2) nonverbal conduct of a person, if it is intended by the person as an assertion.

United States v. Maliszewski, 161 F.3d 992, 1009 (6th Cir. 1998) (upholding trial court's admission of the testimony of witness Mireles [about defendant's repeated statements made by her dead husband] as a statement against....Federal Rule of Evidence of Evidence 804(b)(3) or a comparable State rule creates a hearsay exception for a statement which was at the time of its making so far contrary to the declarant's pecuniary or proprietary interest, or so far tended to subject the declarant to civil or criminal liability, or to render invalid a claim by the declarant against another, that a reasonable person in the declarant's position would not have made the statement unless believing it to be true. A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered to exculpate the accused is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement.

Fed. R. Evid. 406 advisory committee's note ("An oft-quoted paragraph, McCormick, Section 162, p. 340, describes habit in terms effectively contrasting it with character: 'Character and habit are close akin. Character is a generalized description of one's disposition, or of one's disposition in respect to a general trait, such as honesty,...Habit is a regular response to a specific situation.