The Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution grants a criminal defendant the right to introduce exculpatory evidence that is probative of and relevant to a material issue.

Connelly v. Hyundai Motor Corp., 351 F.3d 535, 537 (1st Cir. 2003) (An action arising from the wrongful death of a minor child. The court held that the evidence of the driver's prior tickets for not using his seat belt was precluded under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) as it merely suggested that he likely failed...The prohibition against circumstantial use of character -- the use of character or disposition to show conduct on a particular occasion -- applies in trials of civil actions.

Simple v. Walgreen Co., 511 F.3d 668, 672 (7th Cir. 2007) (holding, in plaintiff manager's employment racial discrimination action against defendant drugstore chain, that the trial court erroneously excluded the store....A statement is imputed to a principal or to an employer and is treated as the principal's or employer's vicarious admission (which, like other admissions is exempt from the hearsay rule) if the principal or employer is a party, the statement is offered against the principal or party, the statement is a statement by the party's agent or employee about a matter within the scope of the agent's agency or the employee's employment, and the statement is made during the principal-agent or employer-employee relationship.

United States v. Gulley, 526 F.3d 809, 817-818 (5th Cir. 2008) (upholding trial court's exclusion of victim's prior specific acts of violence because such evidence does not prove his alleged propensity for violence or that he was the first aggressor).When an exception makes the victim's character admissible, the testimony of a witness on direct examination about the victim's character must take the form of opinion or reputation and it cannot take the form of specific instances of victim's conduct.