# Mentioning Settlement Offers at Trial **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 3, 2009, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mentioning-settlement-offers-at-trial/505169 "2009-08-03T15:16:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2009, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mentioning-settlement-offers-at-trial/505169/1 "2009-08-03T15:16:21Z")
An example: A guy is on trial for murder. The prosecution offers to settle for a plea bargain of disorderly conduct. The defendant turns it down, insisting on complete dismissal of all charges. Is the defendant allowed to tell the jury that the prosecution made this offer, and that the fact that they would offer such a favorable plea deal shows that the prosecution itself realizes how flimsy the evidence is? Or is this information privileged and/or prejudicial? Of course, the same question would also apply to offer by the defense. And to offer by either the plaintiff or defendant in a civil trial. I don’t recall hearing of such a thing. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2009, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mentioning-settlement-offers-at-trial/505169/2 "2009-08-03T15:52:15Z")
Generally, no. Plea negotiations are inadmissable. > [@](#): > > Rule 410. Inadmissibility of Pleas, Plea Discussions, and Related Statements > > Except as otherwise provided in this rule, evidence of the following is not, in any civil or criminal proceeding, admissible against the defendant who made the plea or was a participant in the plea discussions: > > (1) a plea of guilty which was later withdrawn; > > (2) a plea of nolo contendere; > > (3) any statement made in the course of any proceedings under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure or comparable state procedure regarding either of the foregoing pleas; or > > (4) any statement made in the course of plea discussions with an attorney for the prosecuting authority which do not result in a plea of guilty or which result in a plea of guilty later withdrawn. > > However, such a statement is admissible (i) 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 (ii) 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. ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2009, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mentioning-settlement-offers-at-trial/505169/3 "2009-08-03T15:58:19Z")
> [@pravnik](#): > > Generally, no. Plea negotiations are inadmissable. The rule does not apply if it’s the defendant seeking to use the plea bargain in his case. This would of course grant the prosecutor the right to use other components of the plea bargain. ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2009, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mentioning-settlement-offers-at-trial/505169/4 "2009-08-03T16:02:36Z")
Civil cases and settlement offers are covered under a different FRE - 411 I believe. (EDIT: 408) ---
**Author:** ![IAmNotSpartacus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/cc9497/32.png) [@IAmNotSpartacus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IAmNotSpartacus)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2009, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mentioning-settlement-offers-at-trial/505169/5 "2009-08-03T16:03:55Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > Civil cases and settlement offers are covered under a different FRE - 411 I believe. I don’t think so. > [@](#): > > Rule 411. Liability Insurance > > Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible upon the issue whether the person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully. This rule does not require the exclusion of evidence of insurance against liability when offered for another purpose, such as proof of agency, ownership, or control, or bias or prejudice of a witness. edit: Also, where do you get the idea that the defendant’s plea discussions are admissible, but the prosecution’s plea discussions are not? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2009, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mentioning-settlement-offers-at-trial/505169/6 "2009-08-03T16:09:07Z")
The rules of evidence are governed by state law unless the trial is in federal court, in which case it is governed by the Federal Rules of Evidence. Superimposed upon (or incorporated into) both laws are various constitutional requirements. I don’t think the inadmissibility of plea bargain discussions is a constitutional requirement, just a policy one. Both the state and federal rules exclude some relevant evidence in order to further various policy ends. Settlement negotiations, including plea bargains, are typically excluded because the legal system wants to encourage settlement. As **pravnik** cited, the federal rules state that the prosecution cannot introduce it against the defendant. But I don’t know if the federal rules specifically address whether the defendant can introduce it as evidence of his innocence. In the absence of a specific rule, I suppose a judge would have to decide whether the evidence is relevant. I think you’d have a hard time convincing a judge that a defendant’s refusal to plea bargain is evidence of innocence–and a judge would be unlikely to make that ruling since it would discourage plea bargains. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2009, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mentioning-settlement-offers-at-trial/505169/7 "2009-08-03T16:09:50Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > The rule does not apply if it’s the defendant seeking to use the plea bargain in his case. This would of course grant the prosecutor the right to use other components of the plea bargain. I thought about that after I posted; the hypo has the defendant using the plea negotiation rather than the state. Still, the defendant can’t use the mere existence of a prior plea offer made by a DA to show the weakness of the state’s case; it wouldn’t be relevant. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2009, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mentioning-settlement-offers-at-trial/505169/8 "2009-08-03T16:14:31Z")
> [@pravnik](#): > > I thought about that after I posted; the hypo has the defendant using the plea negotiation rather than the state. Still, the defendant can’t use the mere existence of a prior plea offer made by a DA to show the weakness of the state’s case; it wouldn’t be relevant. Unless there was some _res gestae_-type narrative that made it relevant. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2009, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mentioning-settlement-offers-at-trial/505169/9 "2009-08-03T16:17:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Unless there was some _res gestae_-type narrative that made it relevant. Right - that’s why I edited to add the word “mere.” 😉