The relevance of particular matters in particular contexts

United States v. Espinoza, 641 F.2d 153, 170-171 (4th Cir. 1981) (upholding trial court's admission into evidence of the testimony of a retail outlet owner identifying the defendant as the person with whom he spoke by....Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(6) and comparable State rules provide that a statement made by a person over the telephone may be authenticated (i) if the call was to a person, the call was to the number assigned to the person and circumstances, including self-identification, show or suggest that the person who spoke was the person who was called and (ii) if the call was to a business, the call was to the number assigned to that business and the conversation related to business reasonably transacted over the telephone.

Cf. United States v. Walker, 410 F.3d 754, 758 (5th Cir. 2005) (upholding trial court's exclusion into evidence of the videotaped statement to the police under the residual hearsay exception because declarant had every....A statement is admissible under the hearsay exception created by Federal Rule of Evidence 807 or a comparable State rule only if circumstantial evidence shows that the affected statement is as trustworthy as the statements that are made admissible by the hearsay exceptions created by Federal Rules of Evidence 803 and 804 or by comparable State rules.

Olden v. Kentucky, 488 U.S. 227, pin? (1988) (charge: forcible sodomy, defense: consent; at trial, accused, Olden, sought to show that alleged victim, Matthews, a female, was involved in an extramarital relationship with accused's half brother Russell, and that she concocted...The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives a defendant a constitutional right in both federal and state criminal trials to conduct a reasonable cross-examination of an adverse witness and to inquire on cross-examination into facts that might, in the mind of a reasonable jury, show the bias of the witness.