Opinion ID: 3167211
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Diversion Agreement

Text: Williams’s final argument is that the district court improperly used and relied on the pretrial diversion agreement in violation of Federal Rule of Evidence 408. Rule 408 states that evidence of “accepting … valuable consideration in compromising … the claim” is inadmissible “either to prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim or to impeach by a prior inconsistent statement or a contradiction[.]” Fed. R. Evid. 408. This argument is unconvincing beNo. 15-1763 17 cause the district court did not rely on the diversion agreement in granting summary judgment. The district court only briefly referred to the diversion agreement. The court noted that defendants pointed to the agreement to support their claim that Williams was resisting law enforcement. The court also noted Williams’s argument that the agreement is not admissible. Without ruling on the admissibility of the diversion agreement and without mentioning it further, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants. Thus, the district court did not rely on the diversion agreement to prove the validity of a claim—namely, defendants’ claim that Officer Brooks had probable cause to believe that Williams was resisting law enforcement—or to impeach Williams with a prior inconsistent statement.