Also known as: FRE 410 · Fed. R. Evid. 410 · Federal Rule of Evidence 410 · evidence rule 410
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A federal rule of evidence that bars admission against the defendant who made the plea or participated in the discussions of a withdrawn guilty plea, a nolo contendere plea, statements made during a Rule 11 proceeding on either plea, or statements made during plea discussions with a prosecutor that did not produce a guilty plea or produced a later-withdrawn guilty plea. The prohibition applies in both civil and criminal cases. Limited exceptions permit admission for fairness when another statement from the same discussion is introduced or in a 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.
Roberto Reyes faced federal drug charges and entered plea negotiations with the prosecutor. His lawyer signed a written agreement stating that any statements Reyes made during those talks could be used to impeach him if he later testified at trial. When Reyes took the stand and gave an account that contradicted his earlier remarks, the prosecutor introduced the negotiation statements for impeachment only.
Radiant Technologies settled an antitrust investigation by signing a consent decree with the government. In a later private damages suit brought by Regal Apparel, the plaintiffs offered the decree to show Radiant’s prior conduct. The court admitted the decree because Rule 410 applies only to criminal pleas and plea discussions, not to civil consent decrees.
Yes. Rule 410(a)(2) expressly makes a nolo contendere plea inadmissible against the defendant who made it in any civil or criminal case. The protection exists so a defendant can accept a criminal disposition without creating an evidentiary admission usable in subsequent litigation.
Supporting sources
Yes. A knowing and voluntary waiver permits the government to use statements made during plea negotiations for impeachment if the defendant testifies inconsistently at trial. The Supreme Court has upheld such waivers as enforceable.
Supporting sources
It depends on whether the exchange qualifies as plea discussions. Courts examine whether the prosecutor engaged in negotiation. A one-sided suggestion by the defendant without reciprocal action from the prosecutor often falls outside the rule’s protection.
Supporting sources
Yes. The rule prohibits use of a withdrawn guilty plea against the defendant who made it in any civil or criminal case. The categorical bar applies regardless of the identity of the offering party or the reliability of the statements.
Supporting sources