Extra sensory perception is unscientific -- it is junk science -- and it does not meet the requirements under Federal Rule of Evidence for the admissibility of expert evidence.

United States v. Johns, 15 F.3d 740, 744 (8th Cir. 1994) (upholding trial court's exclusion of victim's sexual history because the accused failed (1) to raise an issue as to the source of semen or injury, and (2) to show prior instances of consensual sex between victim and himself).Rape shield laws frequently make it impermissible -- sometimes in trials of civil actions as well as in criminal trials -- to introduce evidence either to show that an alleged victim of sexual wrongdoing engaged in other sexual behavior or to show the alleged victim's sexual predisposition.

United States v. Harris, 331 F.2d 185, 187-189 (4th Cir. 1964) (reversing conviction for possession of nontaxpaid whiskey and ordering new trial because even though during direct examination defendant had admitted prior convictions for dealing in nontaxpaid whiskey, the trial court erred in admitting...A criminal defendant's criminal propensity to commit cannot be used to show that defendant committed the crime or crimes for which he or she is on trial.

United States v. Wells, 347 F.3d 280, 288 (8th Cir. 2003) (upholding trial court's admission into evidence of the tape recordings because the speakers were identified as "the government called two witnesses to make....Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(5) and comparable State rules allow identification of a person's voice -- they allow identification of a speaker -- by a lay witness who has heard the purported speaker's voice on another occasion.