The relevance of proffered evidence may depend on a "condition." A "condition" is some fact other than the fact that the proffered evidence is meant to establish.

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 68 (2004) ("Whatever else the term ['testimonial'] covers, it applies at a minimum to prior testimony at a preliminary hearing, before a grand jury, or at a former trial").If a statement was made in another judicial proceeding and the statement is offered against a defendant in a criminal trial, the statement - if offered to establish the statement is true - is "testimonial" and the statement is therefore subject to the right of confrontation guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 165-166 (1970) (holding that the admission of the prior testimony of an unavailable witness does not violate the Confrontation Clause ).The hearsay exception for prior testimony applies only if testimony was in fact previously given.

United States v. Cooper, 0 F.3d 0, pin? (5th Cir. 2009) (""Evidence that a party threatened a witness is generally admissible. United States v. Rocha, 916 F.2d 219, 241 (5th Cir. 1990). When it is not known who made or caused that threat, at least absent some special...The trial court may admit other crime, wrong, or act evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) for a nonpropensity purpose before determining whether there is sufficient evidence to allow a jury to reasonably conclude that the other crime, wrong, or act was in fact committed. The trial court may make a finding on sufficiency after such other act crime, wrong, or act evidence is provisionally admitted.