Rule 406 provides: 'Evidence of the habit of a person . . ., whether corroborated or not and regardless of the presence of eyewitnesses, is relevant to prove that the conduct of the person . . . on a particular occasion was in conformity with the habit. . . .' The limitations on the methods of proving character set out in Rule 405 do not apply to proof of habit. Testimony concerning prior specific incidents is allowed. See McCormick § 195, at 577.
'Habit' as 'a regular practice of meeting a particular kind of situation with a certain type of conduct, or a reflex behavior in a specific set of circumstances.' Frase v. Henry, 444 F.2d 1228, 1232 (10th Cir. 1971) (defining 'habit' under Kansas law). The advisory committee notes to Rule 406 state that, 'while adequacy of sampling and uniformity of response are key factors, precise standards for measuring their sufficiency for evidence purposes cannot be formulated.' Fed. R. Evid. 406 advisory committee note.
Rule 406 allows certain evidence which would otherwise be inadmissible if it rises to the level of habit. Habit refers to the type of nonvolitional activity that occurs with invariable ...