A statement by an agent or an employee who is not authorized to speak on behalf of the agent's principal or the employee's employer may nonetheless be treated as the statement of the principal or the employer and thus as a vicarious admission that is exempt from the prohibition against hearsay; but such a statement can be imputed to the principal or the employer only if the statement, if by an agent, is about a matter within the scope of the agent's agency or, if by an employee, the statement is about a matter within the scope of the employee's employment.

Karme v. Commissioner, 673 F.2d 1062, 1065 (9th Cir. 1982) (holding, in taxpayers' claim for deduction, that the tax court properly admitted into evidence the bank records and testimony under the residual hearsay....A statement is admissible under the hearsay exception created by Federal Rule of Evidence 807 or a comparable State rule only if circumstantial evidence shows that the affected statement is as trustworthy as the statements that are made admissible by the hearsay exceptions created by Federal Rules of Evidence 803 and 804 or by comparable State rules.

Cf. Treece v. Hochstetler, 213 F.3d 360, 363 (7th Cir. 2000) (holding, in plaintiff's civil rights action against police officer, police department, and city for malicious prosecution, that evidence of police officer's prior bad acts was inadmissible and properly excluded where it "did not 'bear a...That other wrongs or crimes show a person's pattern of conduct does not by itself make inapplicable either the prohibition in Federal Rule of Evidence 404(a) against the use of character or propensity to show that person's conduct on a particular occasion or the corollary prohibition in Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) against the use of other wrongs or crimes to show character or propensity for the purpose of showing a person's conduct on a particular occasion.

Cf. United States v. Armijo, 5 F.3d 1229, 1232-1233 (9th Cir. 1993) (holding that the trial court erred in admitting a witness's unsworn prior inconsistent statement "because it was not given under oath." but "the admission of....A prior inconsistent statement of a witness is admissible, not only to impeach the witness, but also as substantive evidence -- to prove the truth of the matter previously asserted by the witness -- only if the prior consistent statement was made under oath.