Although Federal Rule of Evidence 407 and similar State rules bar the use of subsequent remedial measures to prove negligence or culpable conduct, a defect in the product or its design, or a need for warning or instruction, subsequent remedial measures evidence can be used to impeach the credibility of a witness.

Cf. Roshan v. Fard, 705 F.2d 102, 104-106 (4th Cir. 1983) (vacating judgment in a civil action where defendant was found guilty of assault and battery because the trial court erred in excluding evidence of defendant's role in plaintiff's conviction on serious drug charges where it was offered to...The prohibition against circumstantial use of character -- the use of character, propensity, or disposition to show conduct on a particular occasion -- is inapplicable in trials of civil actions.

Cf. United States v. Solomon, 399 F.3d 1231, pin? (10th Cir. 2005) (convictions for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and being a felon in possession of a firearm; defendant asserted that...The Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution grants a criminal defendant the right to introduce exculpatory evidence that is probative of and relevant to a material issue.

Fed. R. Evid. 403 ("Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.").It is generally permissible for a cross-examiner to inquire into acts of the witness that reasonably suggest that the witness is untruthful, but the trial court has the discretion to preclude a question about such an act if the trial finds that the risk of prejudice occasioned by such an inquiry into such an act substantially outweighs the probative value of such an act on the question of the truthfulness of the witness.