Print Version
Previous PageFile uploaded: 4/4/2012

Rule 410. Pleas, Plea Discussions, and Related Statements


(a)   ProhibitedUses. In a civil or criminal case, evidence of the following is not admissibleagainst the defendant who made the plea or participated in the pleadiscussions:


(1)   a guilty plea thatwas later withdrawn;


(2)   a nolo contendere plea;


(3)   a statement madeduring a proceeding on either of those pleas under Federal Rule of CriminalProcedure 11 or a comparable state procedure; or


(4)   a statement madeduring plea discussions with an attorney for the prosecuting authority if thediscussions did not result in a guilty plea or they resulted in alater-withdrawn guilty plea.


(b)   Exceptions. The court may admit a statementdescribed in Rule 410(a)(3) or (4):


(1)   in any proceeding inwhich another statement made during the same plea or plea discussions has beenintroduced, if in fairness the statements ought to be considered together; or


(2)   in a criminal proceeding for perjuryor false statement, if the defendant made the statement under oath, on therecord, and with counsel present.



2011Advisory Committee Note. Thelanguage of this rule has been amended as part of the restyling of the EvidenceRules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminologyconsistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylisticonly. There is no intent to change any result in any ruling on evidenceadmissibility. This rule is the federal rule, verbatim.




This rule is the federal rule,verbatim. There was no comparable rule in the Utah Rules of Evidence (1971).However, withdrawn pleas of guilty have been ruled inadmissible by the UtahSupreme Court. State v. Jensen, 74 Utah 299, 279 P. 506 (1929).


Rule 410(4) does not cover pleanegotiations with public officials other than prosecuting attorneys. There arestill constitutional limitations on the use of statements obtained fromsuspects. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d694 (1966); Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201,84 S. Ct. 1199, 12 L. Ed. 2d 246 (1964).