In People v. Allweiss, 48 N.Y.2d 40, the Court of Appeals focused upon the special nature of the evidence proffered to establish uniqueness of conduct: It is settled that unless identity has been conclusively established the People are not precluded from attempting to identify the defendant as the culprit by proof of other crimes ( People v. Condon, 26 N.Y.2d 139). But in order to identify the defendant in this manner it is not sufficient to show that he has committed similar acts if the method used is not uncommon. Simply category-izing the defendant as one of many criminal specialists would be of little probative value in determining whether he committed the crimes charged, and the prejudice would be obvious: 'it is much easier to believe in the guilt of an accused person when it is known or suspected that he has previously committed a similar crime' ( People v. Molineux, 168 NY 264). There must be some additional factor to set the defendant's crimes apart from the ordinary so that 'the mere proof that the defendant had committed a similar act would be highly probative of the fact that he committed the one charged'. The Court of Appeals held that the identity of the killer was the primary issue at trial. The defendant was charged with homicide, with the People's case based on circumstantial evidence. The District Attorney introduced testimony from six other woman who testified they had been raped by defendant during the five months preceding the homicide. Their testimony described defendant's conduct during those incidents and was offered to show defendant had employed the same modus operandi in the homicide and would thus tend to establish his identity as the killer (Allweiss, 48 NY2d at 45-49). While other evidence including hair samples and a voice identification were admitted, this evidence did not conclusively identify defendant as the killer (Id at 47). The court held that the evidence from the six other woman was highly probative "because it demonstrated a distinctive repetitive pattern, evident at the scene of the homicide, which was characteristic of the defendant's behavior," and this was highly relevant in the homicide, "where there were no witnesses and the other evidence was less than conclusive" (Id at 48).