Under Rule 408, compromise offers and negotiations are generally excluded from evidence to prove liability. Which statement best describes their admissibility for other purposes?

• A. It is admissible to prove liability.
• B. It is admissible to prove bias or prejudice.
• C. It is admissible to prove the amount of damages.
• D. It is admissible to prove the defendant's intent.

Answer: (B)

Under Rule 408, talks during settlement negotiations are kept out of evidence when the goal is proving liability or the amount of damages. But there’s an important exception: those same negotiations can be admitted for other purposes, such as showing a witness’s bias or prejudice. The idea is to prevent settlement talks from being a tool to unfairly sway credibility while still enabling the court to assess potential biases that could affect testimony. So, using compromise negotiations to demonstrate that a witness has a particular bias or prejudice is allowed, which is why this option is the best fit. The other options try to use the negotiations to prove liability, damages, or intent, which Rule 408 generally blocks.