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.

United States v. Zedner, 401 F.3d 36, 49-50 (2d Cir. 2005) (upholding trial court's admission into evidence of rebuttal witnneses' testimony about accused's previous commission of fraud, where accused claimed lack of criminal intent, and evidence of fraud was relevant to prove accused's "financial...Evidence of a criminal or wrongful act apart from the act that at issue at trial Is not barred by the prohibition against circumstantial use of character if intent, knowledge, mistake, or accident is a legally-material factual issue, the opposing party suggests the non-existence of knowledge or urges mistake or accident as a defense, and evidence of another crime, wrong, or act is offered to prove the knowledge or the absence of mistake or accident by a criminal defendant or other person.

Cf. Schindler v. Joseph C. Seiler & Synthes Spine Co., L.P., 474 F.3d 1008, 1011-1012 (7th Cir. 2007) (holding, in plaintiff physician's diversity action against defendants individual and employer, that plaintiff's testimony about what Dr. White had said to him....For purposes of the hearsay exceptions created by Federal Rule of Evidence 804 or a comparable State rule, a declarant is "unavailable" within the meaning of Rule 804(a) or a comparable State rule if the declarant testifies to a lack of memory of the subject matter of the declarant's statement; but a declarant is not "unavailable" if such claim of lack of memory is due to the procurement or wrongdoing of the proponent of a statement for the purpose of preventing the witness from attending or testifying.

United States v. Crawley, 533 F.3d 349, 354 (5th Cir. 2008) (upholding trial court's admission into evidence of accused's involvement in the 1999 voter fraud because its relevance and probative value in showing accused's intent and motive, which are essential elements of the 2002 voter fraud offense),...Evidence of a criminal or wrongful act apart from the act that at issue at trial Is not barred by the prohibition against circumstantial use of character if intent, knowledge, mistake, or accident is a legally-material factual issue, the opposing party suggests the non-existence of knowledge or urges mistake or accident as a defense, and evidence of another crime, wrong, or act is offered to prove the knowledge or the absence of mistake or accident by a criminal defendant or other person.