The trial court has broad discretion to bar abusive, humiliating, and harassing questions.

Uforma/Shelby Business Forms, Inc. v. NLRB, 111 F.3d 1284, 1294 (6th Cir. 1997) (holding, in union's action against company for unfair labor practice, that evidence of statements during negotiations [which were intended to resolve the....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, they are admissible when they are offered to support or oppose a claim based on a settlement agreement.

Fed. R. Evid. 405(a) advisory committee's note ("The express allowance of inquiry into specific instances of conduct on cross-examination in subdivision (a) and the express allowance of it as part of a case in chief when character is actually in issue in subdivision (b) contemplate that testimony of specific instances is not generally...When an exception makes the character of a person admissible to show a person's conduct on a specific occasion, the testimony of a witness on direct examination about the person's character must take the form of opinion or reputation and it cannot take the form of specific instances of the person's conduct.

United States v. Watson, 525 F.3d 583, 587-588 (7th Cir. 2008) (upholding trial court's admission into evidence of a secret tape recording of the co-defendant as statement against his penal interest because the statements....Federal Rule of Evidence of Evidence 804(b)(3) or a comparable State rule creates a hearsay exception for a statement which was at the time of its making so far contrary to the declarant's pecuniary or proprietary interest, or so far tended to subject the declarant to civil or criminal liability, or to render invalid a claim by the declarant against another, that a reasonable person in the declarant's position would not have made the statement unless believing it to be true. A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered to exculpate the accused is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement.