Some dreams have been held relevant.

Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E) ("a statement by a coconspirator of a party during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy").A statement falls within the hearsay exemption for statements of co-conspirators only if the statement was made in furtherance of the conspiracy.

See United States v. Crump, 934 F.2d 947, 954-955 (8th Cir. 1991) (upholding trial court's admission of witness's testimony relating to accused's prior bad acts of distributing drugs because accused asserted the defense of entrapment, and such evidence was admissible to prove his predisposition to...A subjective entrapment defense makes an accused's criminal liability contingent on a finding of the accused's predisposition or the accused's lack of predisposition to commit the crime charged and since criminal predisposition is a character trait, the defense of subjective entrapment makes accused's character an element of either a defense or a criminal charge, evidence of accused's criminal predisposition -- including evidence in the form of reputation, opinion, and evidence of specific instances of accused's conduct -- is not barred by the rule against the use of a person's character to show the person's conduct.

Cf. United States v. Serrano, 434 F.3d 1003, 1005 (7th Cir. 2006) (upholding trial court's admission of the insurance documents as non-hearsay evidence because "the documents [were] not introduced for the truth....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.