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.

United States v. Cerno, 529 F.3d 926, pin? (10th Cir. 2008) (conviction for aggravated sexual abuse in Indian country; defendant, invoking Fed.R.Evid. 403, contended that his conviction must be reversed because the district court improperly allowed the prosecutor to question...If a crime or act by a witness did not result in a criminal conviction but is probative of truthfulness and not unduly prejudicial, it may sometimes be used to impeach the witness.

Cf. United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, pin? (1998) (admissibility vel non of exculpatory polygraph evidence in general court-martial; in upholding Military Rule of Evidence 707, which barred polygraph evidence,....A per se rule barring a criminal defendant from testifying about a matter about which he or she was previously hypnotized is unconstitutional.

McKinnon v. Skil Corp., 638 F.2d 270, 277-278 (1st Cir. 1981) (holding, in plaintiff's action for negligence and breach of warranty, that evidence of prior accidents involving defendant's saws was properly excluded because plaintiff failed to show that the accidents occurred under circumstances...When offered in civil actions, other similar events generally do not constitute character, or propensity, and are therefore not barred by the character rule, which prohibits the use of a person's character or propensity to show that person's conduct.