The admissibility of habit does not depend on the presence or absence of eyewitnesses.

Cf. United States v. Young, 65 F. Supp. 2d 370, pin? (E.D. Va. 1999) (referring to the "so-called" doctrine of chances; held, the doctrine, if valid, does not apply to the facts of the case).The "doctrine of chances" does not exist under federal law. (Under the doctrine of chances, when two or more similar acts occur and it is very improbable that the two or more acts would have occurred if they were not criminal acts, in a criminal trial based on one of those acts, the other act or acts are admissible to show that the act for which defendant is on trial was a criminal act.)

Perez v. Irwin, 963 F.2d 499, 502 (2d Cir. 1992) ("The Supreme Court in Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 140, 75 S.Ct. 127, 137, 99 L.Ed. 150 (1954), reh'g denied, 348 U.S. 121, 75 S.Ct. 127, 99 L.Ed. 150 (1955), defined reasonable doubt as a doubt that would cause a person to hesitate to act in...Courts have approved jury instructions saying that a reasonable doubt is a doubt that would cause a reasonable person to hesitate to act before making an important or critical private decision.

United States v. Russo, 302 F.3d 37, 46 (2d Cir. 2002) (upholding trial court's admission into evidence of Parlagreco's testimony about the declarations by non-defendant members of the Colombo family as....A statement by a co-conspirator of a party is not barred by the hearsay rule from being admitted against the party if the statement was made by the co-conspirator during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy.