Also known as: FRE 410 · Federal Rule of Evidence 410 · Fed. R. Evid. Rule 410 · Rule 410
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A rule of evidence rendering inadmissible against the defendant who made the plea or participated in the discussions a withdrawn guilty plea, a nolo contendere plea, statements made during proceedings on those pleas, and statements made during plea discussions with a prosecutor that did not result in a guilty plea or resulted in a later-withdrawn guilty plea. The exclusion applies in both civil and criminal cases. Limited exceptions permit admission when fairness requires consideration of another statement from the same discussion or in a criminal perjury prosecution where the statement was made under oath with counsel present.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Frederick Ferguson faced federal drug charges and entered plea negotiations with the prosecutor. He signed a written agreement waiving the protections of the rule so that his statements could be used to impeach him if he later testified inconsistently at trial. After the court permitted withdrawal of the plea, the government introduced the statements when Frederick took the stand and denied involvement.
Fabian Flynn entered a guilty plea during a Rule 11 hearing and made detailed statements under oath about his conduct. The court later allowed withdrawal of the plea. In a subsequent civil suit brought by his former employer, the employer sought to introduce those hearing statements to prove Fabian acted without authorization. The court excluded the statements because they were made during a proceeding on a withdrawn guilty plea.
Yes. The rule makes a nolo contendere plea inadmissible against the defendant who entered it in any civil or criminal case. The protection exists so that a defendant may accept a criminal disposition without creating an evidentiary admission usable in subsequent litigation.
Supporting sources
The rule permits admission when another statement from the same discussion has been introduced and fairness requires the statements to be considered together. Admission is also allowed in a criminal perjury prosecution if the statement was made under oath on the record with counsel present.
Supporting sources
Protection attaches only if the exchange qualifies as plea discussions. Courts examine whether the prosecutor engaged in negotiation. A unilateral suggestion by the defendant met with a non-committal response does not constitute protected plea discussions.
Supporting sources
Yes. A criminal defendant may voluntarily and knowingly waive the rule's protections and permit use of plea-negotiation statements for impeachment purposes.
Supporting sources
No. The rule bars only the plea itself. The resulting conviction judgment may be admissible under other rules such as Rule 803(22) when offered against the same defendant.
Supporting sources