parent nodes: evidence | relevance

policy exclusions to relevance

Exceptions to the relevance standard for admitting evidence, based off policy concerns. Generally, these exceptions seek to avoid discouraging favored behavior by allowing it to be used in trial to make a defendant liable.

Policy-based exclusions
When, after an injury or harm allegedly caused by an event, measures are taken that, if taken previously, would have made the injury or harm less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a defect in a product, a defect in a product's design, or a need for a warning or instruction. This rule does not require the exclusion of evidence of subsequent measures when offered for another purpose, such as proving ownership, control, or feasibility of precautionary measures, if controverted, or impeachment.
Rule 407

Note that defendants may be willing to admit feasibility rather than have controverting evidence allowed against them under Rule 407, especially in a case where negligence or products liability is at issue.

The policy justification of barring remedial actions is, of course, to avoid discouraging people from taking remedial actions. The same justification may be used to narrow the scope of what evidence is considered to "controvert" the existence of remedial actions under Rule 407. [Tuer v McDonald] (reading "feasibility" in a medical malpractice case to mean safety, so that a doctor's medical judgment call not to give a heart patient coagulants before surgery as one alternative among others did not mean that the doctor controverted the feasibility of doing so, so that the hospital's later reversal of policy requiring anticcoagulants before surgery was not admissible under Rule 407)

[alias: remedial actions evidence]
(a) Prohibited uses.—Evidence of the following is not admissible on behalf of any party, when offered to prove liability for, invalidity of, or amount of a claim that was disputed as to validity or amount, or to impeach through a prior inconsistent statement or contradiction:
(1) furnishing or offering or promising to furnish or accepting or offering or promising to accept a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise the claim ; and
(2) conduct or statements made in compromise negotiations regarding the claim, except when offered in a criminal case and the negotiations related to a claim by a public office or agency in the exercise of regulatory, investigative, or enforcement authority.
Permitted uses. This rule does not require exclusion if the evidence is offered for purposes not prohibited by subdivision (a). Examples of permissible purposes include proving a witness's bias or prejudice ; negating a contention of undue delay; and proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution.
Rule 408

Note that the invalidity of settlement negotiations as evidence under Rule 408 may possibly conflict with actions based on reliance or promissory estoppel, if the statements upon which the plainitff relied could be seen as a settlement negotiation.

This rule specifically does not bar plea negotiation in criminal cases where the government is acting in a "regulatory, investigative, or enforcement authority," which would appear to cover any criminal plea negotiation. See Rule 408(a)(2). But see Rule 410(4), which does specifically cover criminal plea negotiations, at least discussions "with an attorney for the prosecuting authority" that do not lead to a valid, non-withdrawn plea. Further, settlement negotiation evidence is allowed for nonspecific impeachment for bias, "negating a contention of undue delay," and obstruction of justice claims.

[alias: settlement negotiation evidence]
Except as otherwise provided in this rule, evidence of the following is not, in any civil or criminal proceeding, admissible against the defendant who made the plea or was a participant in the plea discussions:
(1) a plea of guilty which was later withdrawn;
(2) a plea of nolo contendere;
(3) any statement made in the course of any proceedings under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure or comparable state procedure regarding either of the foregoing pleas; or
(4) any statement made in the course of plea discussions with an attorney for the prosecuting authority which do not result in a plea of guilty or which result in a plea of guilty later withdrawn.
However, such a statement is admissible (i) in any proceeding wherein another statement made in the course of the same plea or plea discussions has been introduced and the statement ought in fairness be considered contemporaneously with it, or (ii) in a criminal proceeding for perjury or false statement if the statement was made by the defendant under oath, on the record and in the presence of counsel.
Rule 410

Note that the "with an attorney" language was intended to restrict the scope of what could count as "plea bargaining," so that for example an arrestee's statements to the police may not qualify. But see [Faretta v CA] (constitutional right to defend oneself at trial). Some jurisdictions ask (a) whether the defendant "exhibited a subjective expectation to negotiate a plea" and (b) whether that expectation was "reasonable given the totality of the objective circumstances." [US v Robertson]; see also [US v Sebetich] (following Robertson in holding that defendant could not have expected to bargain in "unplanned encounter" in parking lot during investigative stage).

Note that 410(ii) is necessary for the prosecution of perjury trials.

[alias: plea evidence]
Rule 409
Rule 411

[alias: evidence of insurance coverage]