The hearsay exception for prior testimony applies in a criminal case only if the if the party against whom the testimony is now offered had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony in the prior proceeding by direct, cross, or redirect examination. The exception applies in a civil action or proceeding only if the party against whom the testimony is now offered or a predecessor in interest had an opportunity and similar motive in the prior proceeding to develop the testimony by direct, cross, or redirect examination.

Presley v. Lakewood Engineering and Mfg. Co., 553 F.3d 638, 643-647 (8th Cir. 2009) (plaintiffs offered testimony of "a fire expert and electrical engineer, to investigate the cause of the fire and formulate a theory of fire causation"; the....Experience-based expert knowledge, expert methods, and expert principles does exist and is sometimes admissible as expert evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 or a comparable State rule even though such knowledge, methods, or principles have not been subjected to rigorous empirical testing or verification.

Presley v. Lakewood Engineering and Mfg. Co., 553 F.3d 638, 643 (8th Cir. 2009) ("district court can weigh 'whether the expertise was developed for litigation or naturally flowed from the expert's research'").When considering whether some putatively scientific or expert evidence is sufficiently reliable to satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Evidence 702 or a comparable State rule for the admissibility of scientific or expert evidence, the trial court may consider whether the expert or scientific evidence, principle, or method was developed by a party or its agent in anticipation of litigation.

Arnold v. Groose, 109 F.3d 1292, 1296-1297 (8th Cir. 1997) (holding, in plaintiff prisoner's action against defendant prison employees for conspiracy to kill him and destroy evidence of the conspiracy, that the trial....A positive or direct contradiction between the testimony at the trial or proceeding and a prior statement is not required to make the prior statement "inconsistent" for purposes of the hearsay exemption created by Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(A) or by a comparable State rule. It is sufficient if there is a disparity between the two statements such that a reasonable person might question the credibility of the person who made them.