A statement by an agent or an employee can be imputed to the principal or the employer (respectively) and be treated as a vicarious admission (that, like other admissions, is exempt from the prohibition against hearsay) only if the statement was made during the agency or employment relationship.

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.

United States v. Rainone, 32 F.3d 1203, pin? (7th Cir. 1994) (opinion by Judge Posner for the court; under the circumstances court rejects attack on use of attorney-client privilege to shield notes of co-defendant's communications with his attorney; however, under other...Although United States Supreme Court precedent establishes that in some circumstances a nonconstitutional privilege must yield to the federal constitutional rights of a criminal defendant, apart from the specific circumstances for which the Court has given an authoritative answer, it is unsettled and and it is unknown when such a privilege rule must yield to a federal constitutional right such as confrontation, due process, or the right to present a defense.

Fed. R. Evid. 608(a) ("The credibility of a witness may be ... supported by evidence in the form of opinion or reputation, but subject to these limitations: (1) the evidence may....If one party uses reputation or opinion evidence to impeach a witness, an opposing party may use, respectively, either reputation evidence or opinion evidence about truthfulness to rehabilitate the witness.