welcome to module 8 Federal rule of evidence 408 we are in the midst of studying five specialized rules of relevance which I call the sappy rules rules that ban the use of particular pieces of evidence if offered for particular purposes rule 408 has three main components to it first prohibited uses of compromise evidence evidence of a compromise or an attempt to compromise namely a settlement are inadmissible if offered to prove liability for or the invalidity of a claim where there's a dispute or to impeach second rule 408 discusses several permissible uses the rule does not require the exclusion of compromise evidence when it's offered for purposes that are not explicitly prohibited and the rule contains some examples such as proving bias or Prejudice of a witness negating a contention of undue delay or proving an effort to obstruct criminal investigations the third point is even if compromise evidence survives rule 408 it's offered for a valid other purpose it still has to be analyzed in light of rule 403 note that rule 408 only applies in civil cases not criminal cases and also be mindful of the rationals for this rule this evidence has very limited probative value if offered to prove liability or invalidity why because there might be reasons other than liability or invalidity for a person to enter settlement negotiations perhaps the party simply wants to maintain peace and get the issue resolved as quickly and amicably as possible second this evidence has has a high risk of prejudice after all if a jury were to hear about certain statements made during settlement negotiations or the fact of a settlement negotiation it might infer liability it might infer that the party wanted to sweep the case under the rug lastly there are strong public policy reasons uh for this rule in essence we want to encourage compromise settlements in order to ease the pressure on our litigation dockets now four points are worth uh clarifying at this stage first the rule relates both to attempts to compromise and completed compromises attempts to compromise often come up let's say Adam has sued a major hamburger chain alleging food poisoning Adam and the hamburger chain enter into compromise negotiations however they don't reach an accord and the case proceeds to trial suppose Adam seeks to introduce certain statements that the hamburger company made during those settlement negotiations into evidence at trial rule 408 would say that that is banned if it's offered to prove liability why because it relates to an attempt to compromise that failed to culminate in a settlement when however might evidence of a completed compromise be an issue it usually comes up in a case involving multiple litigants so let's say that not only has Adam sued the hamburger company alleging food poisoning but also that Brenda has done so let's further suppose that Adam has settled and earned a nice tidy sum from uh the hamburger company Brenda however has chosen to proceed to trial and she wants to introduce evidence of Adam's completed compromise with the hamburger company in order to show that the hamburger company is potentially liable in her case rule 408 would ban the introduction of that evidence if offered to prove liability second there must be a claim what is a claim for purposes of for A8 well obviously a lawsuit constitutes a claim however some courts have found that even informal demands might constitute a claim for 408 purposes so even pre-lawsuit discussions might conceivably be covered under rule 408 third note that this rule covers statements or conduct during compromise negotiations as well as the use of statements to impeach or contradict something that occurred at trial fourth be mindful of the fact that the permissible purposes listed in rule 408 are just illustrative they're not exhaustive as in rule 407 the list is potentially infinite if you can come up with a reason for introducing this evidence other than the prohibited purposes then you will survive rule 408 to face rule 403