Under some circumstances a witness' specific acts or other statements are admissible to impeach or rehabilitate a witness by showing the propensity of the witness for untruthfulness or truthfulness.

United States v. Russo, 302 F.3d 37, 43 (2d Cir. 2002) (upholding trial court's admission into evidence of out-of-court statements about defendants' Colombo family affiliation because it "did not fall within the....If a statement is made by a party and the statement is offered against the party that made the statement, the federal law of evidence characterizes such a statement as non-hearsay and exempts it from the hearsay prohibition found in Federal Rule of Evidence 802 or a comparable State rule even though the exempted statement otherwise satisfies the definition of hearsay given in Rule 801(c) or a comparable State rule.

Cf. United States v. Childs, 5 F.3d 1328, 1336 (9th Cir. 1993) (upholding trial court's admission into evidence of the documents submitted with the DMV because even though the requirements for being self-authenticating....Some things or documents -- some things and documents with certain characteristics or appearances -- do not have to be authenticated: some things or documents are "self-authenticating."

Johnson v. Hugo's Skateway, 974 F.2d 1408, 1413 (4th Cir. 1992) (ordering new trial in racial harassment and intimidation action in which the trial court excluded evidence of the consent order since it proved the truth of....Although settlement negotiations and offers are inadmissible (i) to show the validity or invalidity of a claim when validity is in dispute, (ii) to show the amount of damages when the amount is in dispute, or (iii) to impeach by showing a prior inconsistent statement or specific contradiction, such settlement offers and negotiations are admissible if they are used to impeach a witness by showing the bias or interest of the witness.