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.

Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, pin? (1974) (held, criminal defendant's constitutional right of confrontation under the circumstances overrides state statute making confidential a juvenile court's adjudication giving juvenile -- and witness against accused -- probationary status).A nonconstitutional privilege sometimes must yield to a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront and cross-examine an adverse witness in a criminal trial. A nonconstitutional privilege privilege may have to yield to a criminal defendant's Confrontation Right when the privilege shields evidence or facts (particularly evidence or facts showing bias) that have significant probative value on the credibility of an adverse witness in a criminal trial who testifies about material facts in issue.

Fed. R. Evid. 601(a) ("The court shall exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence so as to ... (2) avoid needless consumption of time").The trial court has broad discretion to limit the length of interrogation to prevent excessive consumption of time and waste of resources.

United States v. Withorn, 204 F.3d 790, 794 (8th Cir. 2000) (upholding trial court's admission into evidence of accused's past sexual assault where it was probative as it showed accused's propensity toward a similar type of sexual behavior).Federal Rule of Evidence 413 and comparable rules in a few States create an express exception to the prohibition against circumstantial use of character, the prohibition against the use of character to show conduct. Rules such as Rule 413 provide that in a criminal trial for sexual assault evidence of the defendant's commission of another offense or offenses of sexual assault is admissible.