In the jurisdictions that have adopted the Federal Rules, the proponents of uncharged-misconduct evidence cite Rule 104(b), which reads, 'When the relevancy of evidence depends upon the fulfillment of a condition of fact, the court shall admit it upon, or subject to, the introduction of evidence sufficient to support a finding of the fulfillment of the condition.' This rule reflects Congress' intent that the courts had too often excluded probative uncharged-misconduct evidence. This is evidenced in the widespread trend toward the relaxation of evidentiary barriers to proof of uncharged misconduct in Federal courts and the courts of those States that have adopted some version of the Federal Rules of Evidence. It is also clear that many of the same courts believe that the balance tips in favor of admission of uncharged-misconduct evidence only when it is both reliable and used only for an independently relevant purpose. This belief accounts for the new procedural safeguards.