The hearsay exception for "business records" created by Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6) or a comparable State rule applies only (i) the record is based on the personal knowledge of an entrant with a business duty to record the event or other such matter or (ii) if the record of the event is based on the personal knowledge of a person who had a business duty to transmit the information about the event or other matter to the person or persons who made the record and had a business duty to do so. A person has a "business duty" if the person has a duty to an organization by reason of law, contract, employment relationship, or other such matter to record or report an event, condition, opinion, or other matter to which the business records exception to the hearsay rule may apply.

Johnson v. Norris, 537 F.3d 840, 845-847 (8th Cir. 2008) (habeas corpus review of murder conviction and death sentence; trial court rejected criminal defendant's attempt to elicit and offer evidence protected by a state's psychotherapist-patient privilege; defendant argued "that his rights under the...Although sparse United States Supreme Court dicta and precedent suggest that nonconstitutional privilege rules may have to yield to a criminal defendant's federal constitutional rights, except for the specific and rare circumstances in which the Court has said or suggested that must happen, it is unknown when such privilege rules must yield to a criminal defendant's constitutional rights such as the right to compulsory process and the broader federal constitutional right to present a defense in a criminal trial.

Cf. United States v. Fleck, 413 F.3d 883, 890-891 (8th Cir. 2005) (holding that even though the evidence of Fleck's alleged insurance fraud was inadmissible where it failed to "provide any context for and were not inextricably intertwined - indeed they had nothing to do with - the commission of the...Evidence that helps tell a factual story in an intelligible way or that puts the evidence or the issues in the case in a meaningful or intelligible context is "relevant."

Fed. R. Evid. 406 ("whether corroborated or not and regardless of the presence of eyewitnesses").The admissibility of a person's habit or an organization's routine practice does not depend on corroboration or on the presence or absence of eyewitnesses.