Permissible and impermissible methods of interrogating witnesses at trial

United States v. Weinstock, 153 F.3d 272, 276 (6th Cir. 1998) (upholding trial court's admission of the Physician Practice Profile [consisting of statistical data generated from Blue Cross computers] as a business record....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.

United States v. Hadley, 431 F.3d 484, 495-496 (6th Cir. 2005) (upholding trial court's admission of defendant wife's statements as excited utterances because "an ongoing domestic dispute that warranted two 911 calls....A statement falls within the hearsay exception created by Federal Rule of Evidence 803(2) or a comparable State rule for excited utterances, only if the declarant (the maker of the statement) was under the stress of the startling event or condition when he or she made the statement that relates to that startling event or condition.

Fed. R. Evid. 404(a)(2) ("In a criminal case, and subject to the limitations imposed by Rule 412, evidence of a pertinent trait of character of the alleged victim of the crime offered by an accused" is admissible.).In a criminal trial accused may offer a pertinent character trait of a victim to show the victim's conduct on a particular occasion; i.e., accused may use victim's character "circumstantially," as "circumstantial" evidence of victim's conduct on a specific occasion.