Does the rule limiting the admissibility of subsequent remedial measures extend to remedial measures that are offered to show a defect in a product, a defect in a product's design, or a need for a warning or instruction?

United States v. Perry, 857 F.2d 1346, 1351-1352 (9th Cir. 1988) (upholding trial court's admission of a bankruptcy court's determination [that certain transfers of property to defendant's relatives were fraudulent....There is a hearsay exception for public records of documents affecting an interest in property.

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.").To qualify as an excited utterance under the hearsay exception created by Federal Rule of Evidence 803(2) or a comparable State rule, a statement need not be contemporaneous with the startling event or condition to which the statement relates: the statement may be made after the startling event or condition.

Fed. R. Evid. 103(d) advisory committee's note ("This wording of the plain error principle is from Rule 52(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. While judicial unwillingness to be constructed by mechanical breakdowns of the adversary system has been more pronounced in criminal cases, there is no scarcity of decisions to the same...An objection is unnecessary to preserve a claim of error and a trial court should exclude, on its own initiative, evidence offered against a criminal defendant or other disadvantaged party when admission of the evidence would be "plain error."