A verbal act is an utterance or statement that has legal significance under applicable substantive law simply because of the making of the utterance or statement.

United States v. Reed, 227 F.3d 763, 767 (7th Cir. 2000) (upholding trial court's ruling to admit Simmons's prior testimony because he was unavailable, as Federal Rule of Evidence 804(a)(1) considers a declarant as....For purposes of the hearsay exceptions created by Federal Rule of Evidence 804 or a comparable State rule, a declarant is "unavailable" within the meaning of Rule 804(a) or a comparable State rule if the declarant persists in refusing to testify concerning the subject matter of the declarant's statement despite an order of the court to do so; but a declarant is not "unavailable" if the declarant's refusal is due to the procurement or wrongdoing of the proponent of a statement for the purpose of preventing the witness from attending or testifying.

Doe v. Smith, 470 F.3d 331, 342 (7th Cir. 2006) (remanding for new trial in a molestation suit because the district court erred in excluding evidence of defendant's 2001 conviction for solicitation of a child where defendant's solicitous conduct "constituted an attempt to commit a sexual offense against a...Federal Rule of Evidence 415 and comparable rules in some states create an exception to the prohibition against "circumstantial" character evidence, the prohibition in Federal Rule against the use of character to show conduct. Rules such as Rule 415 provide that in a civil action which a claim rests on a party's alleged conduct constituting a criminal sexual assault or child molestation, evidence of that party's commission of another offense or offenses of sexual assault or child molestation is relevant and admissible.

McKinnon v. Skil Corp., 638 F.2d 270, 277 (1st Cir. 1981) (plaintiff may submit prior instances to show design defect only if plaintiff shows that the prior incidents "occurred under circumstances substantially similar to those at issue in the case at bar' ").To be admissible, prior events or accidents must be substantially similar to those at issue in trial.