Extrinsic evidence of prior inconsistent statements is not barred by the partial federal codification in Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b) of the common law collateral matter rule.

Cf. Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, pin? (D.C. Cir. 1923) (decision that long predates the Federal Rules of Evidence; it was this decision that established the "Frye test" for the admissibility of novel scientific evidence; the court held polygraph test results...Polygraph test results are insufficiently reliable to be admissible.

United States v. DeCicco, 370 F.3d 206, 210-211 (1st Cir. 2004) (remanding for further proceedings in which trial court had excluded evidence of the March 1992 fire, on ground that such evidence was relevant and probative of accused's common scheme or plan to burn the Heard Street warehouse for the...Evidence of another crime, wrong, or act is not barred by the prohibition against circumstantial use of character if such other crime, wrong, or act is offered to prove the existence of a plan or scheme.

Mahone v. Lehman, 347 F.3d 1170, 1173-1174 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding, in plaintiff inmate's civil rights action against defendant prison officials, that the psychiatrist's opinion was inadmissible hearsay because the....A statement can be hearsay only if the statement is "offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted." The purpose for which a statement is offered depends on the purpose of the offeror of the statement. Hence, a statement is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted if the offeror (normally trial counsel) seeks to use the statement to show that the matter or proposition asserted by the declarant (the maker of the statement) is in fact true.