1. The general rules of relevancy are stated in Rules 401-403. They govern the admissibility of evidence ONLY if there is no more specific rule that controls the outcome.
2. Rules 407-411 are such "more specific rules." Thus, the admissibility of evidence that the defendant in a civil suit has $1 million in the bank is determined by Rule 403 balancing because there is no specific rule addressing wealth. However, the admissibility of evidence that the defendant in a civil suit has a $1 million insurance policy will be determined by Rule 411, not 403, because 411 is a specific rule addressing insurance.
3. These rules generally follow a pattern. They a) define a type of evidence, b) declare that it is not admissible for some purposes, and c) either expressly or implicitly state that it is admissible for other purposes. For example, Rule 407 applies to "measures taken after an injury that, if taken previously, would have made the injury less likely to occur." It declares such evidence "not admissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct, or a product defect," but may be admissible "when offered for another purpose, such as proving ownership, control, or feasibility of precautionary measures, if controverted."
4. Evidence may serve more than one purpose. The fact that a defendant put floodlights in a parking lot after a woman was attacked may both constitute a concession that the parking lot had previously been unsafe (negligence), and also prove that the defendant has ownership or control of the parking lot.
5. Rule 402 declares a strong presumption in favor of the admissibility of relevant evidence. That has to be the case, because trials depend on the jury knowing as much about the case as possible. We have to favor the admissibility of evidence over its exclusion. Therefore, if evidence serves two purposes -- one permissible and one impermissible -- it will generally be admissible.
6. However. If evidence is admissible for one purpose and inadmissible for another, it raises a classic Rule 403 danger -- confusion of the issues. the jury may misuse the evidence and consider it for the improper purpose. Therefore, the claim that evidence falls within one of the exceptions in Rules 407-411 is subject to Rule 403 balancing. Its probative value on the issue for which it is offered must not be substantially outweighed by the danger that they jury will use it for the improper purpose. If evidence of safety improvements in a parking lot is offered to show ownership or control, the issue must be genuinely contested. If it is not, then the danger of the jury's likely misuse of it on the issue of negligence will outweigh it and require exclusion.
7. Rule 407. SUBSEQUENT REMEDIAL MEASURES
A) Definition of a subsequent remedial measures: Measures taken after an injury or harm allegedly caused by an event, that, if taken previously, would have
made the injury or harm less likely to occur.
B) Not admissible as an admission of fault, i.e., 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.
C) Admissible when offered for another purpose, such as proving ownership, control, or feasibility of precautionary measures, if such issue is genuinely
controverted. Also admissible to impeach a witness if relevant.
8. Rule 408. COMPROMISE AND OFFERS TO COMPROMISE
A) Definition: An offer to compromise comprises both (1) Offering or accepting consideration in attempting to compromise a claim which was disputed as to
either validity or amount, and (2) Conduct or statements made in the course of such compromise negotiations.
B) Not admissible as an admission of :weakness" by person making the offer, i.e., to prove liability for or invalidity of the claim or its amount.
C) Admissible when offered for another purpose, such as proving bias or prejudice of a witness, negating a contention of undue delay, or proving an effort to
obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution.
9. Rule 409. PAYMENT OF MEDICAL AND SIMILAR EXPENSES
A) Definition of medical payment: Furnishing or offering to pay for medical, hospital, or similar expenses occasioned by an injury.
B) Not admissible as admission of responsibility for the injury, i.e., to prove liability for that injury.
C) Admissible for other relevant purposes, but none is specified in the rule itself.
10. Rule 410. WITHDRAWN PLEAS AND OFFERS
A) Definition: This rule covers: (1) a guilty plea which was later withdrawn; (2) a nolo contendere plea; (3) any statement made in the course of a Rule 11
proceeding (governing the entering of a guilty plea); and (4) any statement made in the course of plea discussions with a prosecuting attorney which do not
result in a plea of guilty.
B) Not admissible as evidence of guilt in any civil or criminal proceeding
C) Admissible (1) 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 (2) 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.
11. Rule 411. LIABILITY INSURANCE
A) Definition: The rule applies to any evidence whether a person has liability insurance.
B) Presumptively not admissible.
C) Admissible when offered to prove a legitimate issue unrelated to liability or damages, such as proof of agency, ownership, or control, or bias or prejudice of
a witness.