The hearsay exception for "business records" recognized by Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6) or a comparable State rule applies only if the record was made at or near the time of the events it records.

United States v. McGuire, 307 F.3d 1192, 1205 (9th Cir. 2002) (upholding trial court's ruling which determined witness as unavailable under Rule 804(a)(4) and admitted her prior testimony because "risks in late pregnancy,....For purposes of the hearsay exceptions created by Federal Rule of Evidence 804 or a comparable State rule a declarant is "unavailable" within the meaning of Rule 804(a) or a comparable State rule if the declarant (1) is exempted by ruling of the court on the ground of privilege from testifying concerning the subject matter of the declarant's statement; or (2) persists in refusing to testify concerning the subject matter of the declarant's statement despite an order of the court to do so; or (3) testifies to a lack of memory of the subject matter of the declarant's statement; or (4) is unable to be present or to testify at the hearing because of death or then existing physical or mental illness or infirmity; or (5) is absent from the hearing and the proponent of a statement has been unable to procure the declarant's attendance (or in the case of a hearsay exception under subdivision (b)(2), (3), or (4) of Rule 804(b) or a comparable State rule, the declarant's attendance or testimony) by process or other reasonable means; but a declarant is not "unavailable" if such exemption, refusal, claim of lack of memory, inability, or absence is due to the procurement or wrongdoing of the proponent of a statement for the purpose of preventing the witness from attending or testifying.

Fed. R. Evid. 609.Under certain circumstances, criminal convictions are admissible to impeach a witness.

Central Soya Co. v. Epstein Fisheries, Inc., 676 F.2d 939, 944-945 (7th Cir. 1982) (holding, in plaintiff seller's diversity action against defendant guarantor, that evidence of accountant's testimony about the negotiations [which led to 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.