Federal Rule of Evidence 410 or a comparable State rule bars the use of a nolo contendere plea (no contest plea) as evidence in any proceeding against the defendant who entered this plea.

Cooper v. Brown, 510 F.3d 870, 880 (9th Cir. 2007) ("Turning to Cooper's contentions about testing of the T-shirt, we note at the outset that it is immaterial whether the EDTA [a preservative] tests were flawed or not because the district court had discretion to conclude that EDTA testing does not meet...Expert evidence based on or involving mass spectrometry and related sciences is insufficiently reliable to satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Evidence 702 or comparable State rules for the admissibility of expert evidence.

United States v. Abel, 469 U.S. 45, pin? (1984).Evidence of the bias or interest of a witness is admissible to impeach the credibility of the witness.

First State Bank v. Maryland Casualty Co., 918 F.2d 38, 40-41 (5th Cir. 1990) (holding, in plaintiff executor's action against defendant insurance company for recovery on an insurance policy, that the trial court properly admitted into....The methods of authentication listed in codified rules such as Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b) are merely illustrations: such enumerated methods are only examples. Any method of authentication that provides sufficient evidence of authenticity is permissible.