Fed. R. Evid. 408 — Compromise Offers and Negotiations
Plain English
Settlement offers, acceptances, and statements made during compromise negotiations of a disputed claim cannot be used to prove or disprove the claim’s validity or amount, or to impeach by a prior inconsistent statement or contradiction. There are carve-outs: negotiation statements are not protected when offered in a criminal case if the talks involved a public agency’s regulatory, investigative, or enforcement authority, and the evidence can come in for other purposes like bias, negating undue delay, or proving obstruction.
From the Courtroom
This is what lets parties talk settlement candidly. The protection covers both the offer and the things said in negotiation—but only about a disputed claim; a flat admission of an undisputed debt is not shielded. Watch the criminal carve-out: statements made to a regulator during civil settlement talks can surface in a later criminal case. And Rule 408 does not bless every use—bias and obstruction remain fair game.
Key Points & Authority
- Prohibited (408(a)). Offers/acceptances and negotiation statements are inadmissible to prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim, or to impeach by prior inconsistent statement or contradiction.
- Criminal carve-out. Negotiation statements to a public office exercising regulatory, investigative, or enforcement authority may be admissible in a criminal case.
- Exceptions (408(b)). Admissible for other purposes—bias, negating undue delay, or proving obstruction.
Florida Parallel
Florida Parallel: Fed. R. Evid. 408 corresponds to § 90.408, Fla. Stat. (Compromise and offers to compromise). Both exclude settlement offers and negotiation statements on the validity or amount of a disputed claim. Cross-reference is text-only for now; live links added in a later interlinking pass.
About this rule walkthrough
Part of The Evidence Code, hosted by John M. Phillips — Board Certified Civil Trial Lawyer, Court TV analyst, admitted in 8 states + 9 federal districts + SCOTUS.
Free consultation: (904) 444-4444 · About John Phillips
Educational only — not legal advice.
Rule Text (verbatim from the Florida Supreme Court)
(a) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of the following is not admissible — on behalf of any party — either to prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim or to impeach by a prior inconsistent statement or a contradiction:
(1) furnishing, promising, or offering — or accepting, promising to accept, or offering to accept — a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise the claim; and
(2) conduct or a statement made during compromise negotiations about the claim — except when offered in a criminal case and when the negotiations related to a claim by a public office in the exercise of its regulatory, investigative, or enforcement authority.
(b) Exceptions. The court may admit this evidence for another purpose, such as proving a witness’s bias or prejudice, negating a contention of undue delay, or proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution.
Educational reference. Educational summary of the Federal Rules of Evidence, not legal advice.
What this rule means in plain English
Settlement offers, acceptances, and statements made during compromise negotiations of a disputed claim cannot be used to prove or disprove the claim’s validity or amount, or to impeach by a prior inconsistent statement or contradiction. There are carve-outs: negotiation statements are not protected when offered in a criminal case if the talks involved a public agency’s regulatory, investigative, or enforcement authority, and the evidence can come in for other purposes like bias, negating undue delay, or proving obstruction.