Statements that fall within an exception to the hearsay rule are admissible to prove the truth of the matter asserted by the declarant (the maker of the statement).

Wood v. Morbark Industries, Inc., 70 F.3d 1201, 1206-1207 (11th Cir. 1995) (holding, in plaintiff widow's strict products liability action against defendant manufacturer, that evidence of design modifications was admissible and....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.

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 51-52 (2004) ("Various formulations of this core class of "testimonial" statements exist: ... 'statements that were made under circumstances which would lead an objective....A factor that weighs in favor of the characterization of a hearsay statement as "testimonial" and in favor of the conclusion that the statement is subject to the constraints on admissibility imposed by the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is that a reasonable declarant would have thought that his or her statement would significantly increase the probability of criminal charges against the defendant.

Fed. R. Evid. 803(2) ("A statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition.").A statement falls within the hearsay exception created by Federal Rule of Evidence 803(2) or a comparable State rule for excited utterances, only if the declarant (the maker of the statement) was under the stress of the startling event or condition when he or she made the statement that relates to that startling event or condition.