The prosecution's use of other acts or crimes for nonpropensity purposes in a criminal case is permissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) only if the prosecution, if accused so requests, provides reasonable notice in advance of trial, or during trial if the court excuses pretrial notice on good cause shown, of the general nature of any such other bad act or other crime evidence it intends to introduce at trial.

Scott v. Goodman, 961 F. Supp. 424, 437-438 (E.D.N.Y. 1997) (holding that defendant's offer to settle was admissible because "[defendant's] statements [were] the very source and substance of a different and independent First Amendment cause of action.").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, settlement evidence is admissible to show that a party had knowledge or notice of a fact.

United States v. Baker, 926 F.2d 179, 180 (2d Cir. 1991) (upholding trial court's admission of witness's testimony about accused's statements was admissible in a criminal proceeding because Rule 408 applies only to a civil litigation ).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, settlement evidence is admissible to show an attempt to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution.

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."