SKOPIL, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiff-appellant Freddie Maddox (“Maddox”), on behalf of the estate of Donald Roy Wilson, brought a cause of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Maddox alleged the City of Los Angeles (“City”) and various police officers violated the decedent’s fourteenth amendment right not to be deprived of life without due process of law. Maddox also alleged two state claims; one based on negligence for wrongful death, and the other for assault and battery.

Maddox raises numerous issues on appeal. She claims the district court erred in instructing the jury (1) to consider the police officers’ motivation when determining plaintiff’s alleged due process violation; (2) that the standard of care for failure to provide medical care is deliberate indifference; and (3) that the police officers’ failure to administer cardial pulmonary resuscitation (“CPR”) is not a violation of the decedent’s due process rights. Maddox also claims the district court erred in failing to instruct the jury that the police officers’ violations of (1) Cal.Gov.Code § 845.6; and (2) Los Angeles Police Commission’s moratorium on choke hold use are negligence per se. Further, Maddox claims the court erred in failing to instruct the jury that the decedent’s pre-existing physical condition is not a proximate cause of death. Finally, Maddox claims the district court erred in excluding defendant’s admission during a Police Department disciplinary proceeding that he violated the City policy by using the choke hold. Appellees claim that the appellant did not timely object to the issues raised on appeal.

We hold that, although Maddox timely objected to all the issues raised on appeal, none of the objections raised were meritorious. Therefore, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW

On July 31, 1982 the decedent Wilson was seen standing naked in the middle of a busy street by Officers Lewis and Nathan. The officers believed Wilson had taken Phencyclidine (“PCP”). When they attempted to take Wilson into custody, an altercation ensued. Wilson was finally handcuffed and placed on the floorboard of the rear seat of a police car by two other officers, Officers Arzuman and Harris. Arzuman and Harris then drove to a nearby hospital. En route to the hospital, Wilson became belligerent in the rear of the car. The officers stopped on the freeway to reposition Wilson and secure him in the rear seat. At this time, Wilson forced Officer Harris against a guardrail which overlooked a steep freeway embankment. Officer Harris feared that Wilson might push him over the guardrail and so applied a choke hold for twenty to thirty seconds. Wilson was subdued and secured in the rear of the police car.

Wilson was still for the remainder of the ride to the hospital. Officer Harris could detect Wilson’s pulse while in the car. When they reached the hospital, however, Officer Harris had difficulty finding a pulse. The officers escorting Wilson to the hospital were trained to use CPR, but did not do so. Instead, Wilson was taken to the jail ward on the thirteenth floor of the hospital. There, the medical staff commenced CPR on Wilson. Wilson did not respond and was pronounced dead later that morning. The Los Angeles County Medical Examiner-Coroner ascribed death to “sudden death associated with blunt force injury to the neck, mild cardial fibrosis and scarring.” Wilson also suffered from sickle cell anemia and damage to many internal organs.

Officer Harris was trained to use the choke hold at the Los Angeles Police Academy. Officers were taught to use the choke hold on a violent suspect who could possibly endanger himself or others. In May 1982, two months prior to the incident herein, the Los Angeles Police Commission imposed a moratorium on the use of the choke hold unless deadly force was called for. Officer Harris was never personally informed of the moratorium on the use of *1412the choke hold. Notice of the moratorium was read at a police roll call, but Officer Harris was not present.

A nine-day jury trial commenced on February 5, 1985. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants, finding that none of the defendants had deprived Wilson of his life without due process of law, and that none of the defendants were negligent. Maddox filed a motion for new trial on March 11, 1985 which was denied. Maddox appeals.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When reviewing a claim of error relating to jury instructions, the court must give consideration to the entire charge as a whole to determine whether the instruction is misleading or incorrectly states the law to the prejudice of the objecting party. Coursen v. A.H. Robbins, 764 F.2d 1329, 1337 (9th Cir.), amended, 773 F.2d 1049 (1985); Smiddy v. Varney, 665 F.2d 261, 265 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 829,103 S.Ct. 65, 74 L.Ed.2d 66 (1982). See also United States v. Marabelles, 724 F.2d 1374, 1382-83 (9th Cir.1984) (standard of review claimed in a criminal charge); Van Cleef v. Aeroflex Corp., 657 F.2d 1094, 1098-99 (9th Cir.1981) (failure to give a requested instruction is not reversible error so long as the trial judge gives adequate instructions on each element of the case).

Trial court rulings on the admissibility of evidence are reviewed for abuse of discretion. M.A.P. Oil Co., Inc. v. Texaco, Inc., 691 F.2d 1303, 1310 (9th Cir.1982). A reviewing court will not reverse for an abuse of discretion unless it has a definite and firm conviction that the court below committed an error. See Potlatch Corp. v. United States, 679 F.2d 153, 157 (9th Cir. 1982).

DISCUSSION

A. Timeliness of Objections.

The City asserts that Maddox failed to timely object to the instruction on the standard to provide medical care, the proposed instruction on negligence per se, the proposed instruction incorporated in the special verdict on proximate cause of death, and the exclusion of evidence regarding a police disciplinary proceeding.

The jury was instructed over a two-day period with the bulk of instructions read on the first day, followed by counsels’ closing argument and the final jury instructions on the second day. Maddox did not object to some of the instructions until the second day, but before the jury was given its final instructions. Fed.R.Civ.P. 51 states that, “... no party may assign as error the giving or the failure to give an instruction unless he objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter to which he objects and the grounds of his objection.”

Maddox’s counsel timely objected to the court’s instruction that the standard of care for failure to provide medical assistance was deliberate indifference, stating his belief that the appropriate standard was negligence. Although his objection was raised after the first day of jury instructions, it is timely under Fed.R.Civ.P. 51 because it was raised before the jury retired to consider its verdict.

Maddox timely requested a negligence per se instruction based upon Cal.Gov.Code § 845.6. Although Maddox’s counsel initially failed to include an instruction based on Cal.Gov.Code § 845.6 in his proposed instructions, the issue was brought to the court’s attention before any jury instructions were read. Before the jury retired to consider its verdict, Maddox’s counsel also proposed a revised jury instruction which incorporated the negligence per se instruction.

Maddox’s counsel also made clear to the court at a side bar discussion that Officer Harris’ admission to violating City policy with respect to the moratorium on the use of choke holds was relevant and probative as to defendant Harris. Maddox’s counsel objected to the exclusion of this evidence. He made the substance of the evidence and his theory of admissibility apparent to the district court. Therefore, *1413the exclusion of the evidence is reviewable on appeal. See Coursen, 764 F.2d at 1333; Fed.R.Evid. § 103(a)(2).

Finally, Maddox’s counsel timely objected to the failure to give an instruction on proximate cause and the “thin-skulled plaintiff.” Maddox’s counsel requested an instruction or special verdict inquiry on this matter before any jury instructions were read and before the special verdict was submitted to the jury. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 49(a) (“If ... the court omits any issue of fact raised by the pleadings or by the evidence, each party waives his right to a trial by jury of the issue so omitted unless before the jury retires he demands its submission to the jury”). This objection was timely.

B. Merits of Objections.

1. State of Mind Instruction

Maddox claims the jury was erroneously instructed to consider the defendant’s “state of mind” in determining if the defendants violated the decedent’s fourteenth amendment due process rights. Specifically, the court instructed the jury that

In determining whether the police officers crossed the constitutional line and violated the plaintiff’s civil rights by using or not using as the case may be unreasonable force, you, in applying your judgment, should consider among other factors the amount of force used in relationship to the apparent need presented, the extent of the injury intended to be actually inflicted, and whether the motive of the officer was to exact punishment rather than arrest the defendant for trial.

When determining the constitutional due process line has been crossed, [sic] you may use state law as a guide to form your decision under the vaguer constitutional standard. For example, state and local rules about the reasonable use of force and the officer’s knowledge of them may reflect on your judgment of the motive of an officer.

Maddox argues that this instruction is erroneous because the correct standard to determine whether defendant violated the decedent’s due process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is negligence.

Maddox’s argument fails. In Daniels v. Williams, — U.S.-, 106 S.Ct. 662, 663, 88 L.Ed.2d 662 (1986) and Davidson v. Cannon, — U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 668, 670, 88 L.Ed.2d 677 (1986), the Supreme Court recently held that mere negligent conduct of a person acting under the color of state law may not be enough to state a claim under section 1983. Daniels and Davidson overruled Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527,101 S.Ct. 1908, 68 L.Ed.2d 420 (1981) to the extent that Parratt states that, “mere lack of due care by a state official may ‘deprive’ an individual of life, liberty or property under the Fourteenth Amendment.” Daniels, 106 S.Ct. at 665. Thus, negligent conduct by the state official is not enough to state a claim under section 1983 based on an alleged violation of the fourteenth amendment due process clause. See also Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 139-40, 99 S.Ct. 2689, 2692-93, 61 L.Ed.2d 433 (1979) (“The question of whether an allegation of simple negligence is sufficient to state a cause of action under § 1983 is more elusive than it appears at first blush. It may well not be susceptible of a uniform answer across the entire spectrum of conceivable constitutional violations”). Under Daniels and Davidson, the court’s instruction in this case was not in error.1

Maddox’s argument fails for another reason. Even prior to the recent decisions in Daniels and Davidson, it was established *1414that section 1983 contains no state of mind requirement independent of that necessary to state a violation of the underlying constitutional right. Parratt, 451 U.S. at 534-35, 101 S.Ct. at 1912-13. This aspect of Parratt predates and survives the recent decisions in Daniels and Davidson. Daniels, 106 S.Ct. at 664.

In this case Maddox alleged the defendant officers deprived the decedent of life and liberty without due process when they applied a choke hold. State and local laws, which define when a police officer may use a choke hold, bear on the inquiry of whether, as a matter of federal constitutional and statutory law, the decedent was deprived of life or liberty without due process. Specifically, the Los Angeles Police Commission limits use of the choke hold unless death or serious bodily injury is threatened. Determining whether an officer on the scene is justified in applying a choke hold requires the evaluation of a number of factors. The officer’s state of mind is certainly relevant to his evaluation of the urgency of the situation, the threat posed by the defendant to himself and others, the threat the defendant poses to the officers, and the need for the amount of force applied. See Williams v. Kelley, 624 F.2d 695, 697 (5th Cir.1980) (quoting Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d 1028, 1033 (2d Cir.) (Friendly, J.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1033, 94 S.Ct. 462, 38 L.Ed.2d 324 (1973)) (the constitutionality of the use of a choke hold on a prisoner depended upon “such factors as the need for the application of force, the relationship between the need and the amount of force that was used, the extent of injury inflicted, and whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm”), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 1019, 101 S.Ct. 3009, 69 L.Ed.2d 391 (1981); see also Tennessee v. Garner, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 1694, 1699-1701, 1703-06, 85 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985) (applying a balancing test to determine if seizure obtained by use of deadly force was constitutionally reasonable; considering also the rules in individual states and police departments).

In this case the jury instructions allowed the jury to refer to state and local laws concerning when a choke hold may be reasonably used to determine whether plaintiff was deprived of his right to life or liberty without due process. It was also not error for the court to instruct the jury that if the officer’s state of mind was such to inflict punishment or injury in excess of the need presented, then local rules regarding the application of the choke hold would have been violated, and the decedent may have been deprived of his fourteenth amendment due process rights. Assessing the jury instructions as a whole, we cannot conclude that they were in error.

2. Deliberate Indifference Instruction

Maddox claims the district court misstated the law when it instructed the jury,

[wjith respect to medical care, the concept of due process of law requires the officers to take reasonable steps to secure medical care which they recognize as necessary for the decedent. The constitutional rights of the decedent are violated if the officers are deliberately indifferent to the necessity of medical care for the decedent. However, any failure by the officers themselves to render car-dial pulmonary resuscitation is not a violation of the decedent’s constitutional rights.

Because Wilson was a pretrial detainee and not a convicted prisoner at the time of the claimed wrongful act, Maddox’s section 1983 action arises under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment and not the eighth amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Jones v. Johnson, 781 F.2d 769, 771 (9th Cir.1986). While a convicted prisoner’s eighth amendment rights are violated if prison personnel are deliberately indifferent to the prisoner’s serious medical needs, Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285, 292, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976), Maddox claims the court erred in instructing the jury that the deliberate indifference *1415standard applies when the decedent was a pretrial detainee.

Although Maddox’s claim arises under the fourteenth amendment due process clause, pretrial detainees’ due process rights are at least as great as the eighth amendment protections available to convicted prisoners. Revere v. Massachusetts General Hospital, 463 U.S. 239, 244, 103 S.Ct. 2979, 2983, 77 L.Ed.2d 605 (1983); Jones, 781 F.2d at 771. While the Court in Revere declined to define the standard of care for alleged deprivation of medical care in the due process context, it specifically found that “[w]hatever the standard may be, [the City] fulfilled its constitutional obligation by seeing that [the injured plaintiff] was taken promptly to a hospital that provided the treatment necessary for his injury.” Revere, 463 U.S. at 245, 103 S.Ct. at 2983.

In this case the district court instructed the jury that, “constitutional rights of the decedent are violated if the officers are deliberately indifferent to the necessity of medical care for the decedent.” The court further instructed the jury that the decedent’s due process rights were violated if the defendant officers failed to take reasonable steps to secure medical care.

We need not decide the precise standard which applies in determining whether a city fulfills its due process obligations to pretrial detainees who require medical attention. Here, as in Revere, the jury could reasonably have concluded that the defendant police officers fulfilled their obligation under the due process clause when they promptly took the defendant to the hospital to obtain medical care. We therefore conclude that taken as a whole the district court’s instructions concerning the deprivation of medical care were adequate.

3. CPR Instruction

Maddox claims the district court erred when it instructed the jury that, “any failure by the officers themselves to render cardial pulmonary resuscitation is not a violation of the decedent’s constitutional rights.” Maddox claims the fourteenth amendment due process clause requires officers to render CPR when a pretrial detainee in their custody is in need of CPR.

The due process clause requires responsible governments and their agents to secure medical care for persons who have been injured while in police custody. Revere, 463 U.S. at 244, 103 S.Ct. at 2983. We have found no authority suggesting that the due process clause establishes an affirmative duty on the part of police officers to render CPR in any and all circumstances. See Cartwright v. City of Concord, 618 F.Supp. 722, 729 (N.D.Cal.1985) (five to seven minute delay in starting CPR on prisoner found hanging in jail cell did not result in § 1983 liability). But cf. Bass by Lewis v. Wallenstein, 769 F.2d 1173 (7th Cir.1985) (prison doctor’s delay in reacting to cardiac arrest was a basis for a § 1983 claim). Due process requires that police officers seek the necessary medical attention for a detainee when he or she has been injured while being apprehended by either promptly summoning the necessary medical help or by taking the injured detainee to a hospital. Revere, 463 U.S. at 245, 103 S.Ct. at 2983.

The district court’s CPR instruction must be read in the context of the court’s entire instruction on the duty to secure medical care for the injured detainee. When read in conjunction with the court’s instruction that, “the concept of due process of law requires the officers to take reasonable steps to secure medical care which they recognize as necessary for the decedent,” the instruction at issue set forth the constitutional obligation of the officers in this case. We find no error.

4. Negligence Per Se Instruction

Maddox claims the district court committed reversible error in failing to instruct the jury that violations of Cal.Gov. Code § 845.6 and the Los Angeles Police Commission’s moratorium on the use of the choke hold were negligence per se. Maddox’s claim is without merit. As we have *1416already noted, ordinary concepts of negligence are not necessarily applicable in a section 1983 claim based upon an alleged fourteenth amendment due process violation. See Daniels, 106 S.Ct. at 665 and discussion at p. 1413 supra. Even assuming, arguendo, that negligence concepts are applicable in this case, we cannot conclude that the district court did not adequately instruct the jury on the significance of violating Cal.Gov.Code § 845.6 and the moratorium in determining whether the officers were guilty of misconduct.

With respect to the officer’s alleged negligence in the use of the choke hold, the court instructed the jury that,

In determining whether the police officers crossed the constitutional line and violated the plaintiff’s civil rights by using or not using as the case may be unreasonable force, you, in applying your judgment, should consider among other factors the amount of force used in relationship to the apparent need presented, the extent of the injury intended to be actually inflicted, and whether the motive of the officer was to exact punishment rather than arrest the defendant for trial.

When determining the constitutional due process line has been crossed, you may use state law as a guide to form your decision under the vaguer constitutional standard. For example, state and local rules about the reasonable use of force and the officer’s knowledge of them may reflect on your judgment of the motive of an officer.

This instruction properly directed the jury’s attention to the reasonableness of the officer’s conduct in using the choke hold in determining whether the decedent’s due process rights were violated. While the court did not use the exact language of the Los Angeles City moratorium, a plaintiff is not necessarily entitled to an instruction using specific words provided the instruction given adequately covers the issue before the jury. Here, the instruction was adequate.

With respect to medical care and the alleged violation of section 845.6, the jury was instructed that,

[t]he concept of due process of law requires the officers to take reasonable steps to secure medical care which they recognize is necessary for the decedent. The constitutional rights of the decedent are violated if the officers are deliberately indifferent to the necessity of medical care for the decedent. However, any failure by the officers themselves to render cardial pulmonary resuscitation is not a violation of the decedent’s constitutional rights.

The instruction adequately reflects Cal. Gov.Code § 845.6’s mandate imposing civil liability when a public employee knows or has reason to know that the person is in need of immediate medical care and he fails to take reasonable steps to summon such care.2

*1417Maddox also apparently argues that she was entitled to a presumption instruction pursuant to Cal.Evid.Code § 669, which provides that a person who violates a statute, ordinance, or regulation of a public entity is presumed negligent. Cal.Evid. Code § 669(a)(1). In order for the section 669 presumption to operate, the jury first would have been required to find that the defendant officers violated Cal.Gov.Code § 845.6 or the Los Angeles Police moratorium.3 The court’s failure to instruct the jury that the police officers should be presumed negligent if they were found to violate a state statute cannot be prejudicial error in this case because of the jury’s specific finding that the police officers’ conduct was reasonable under the circumstances and, therefore, not in violation of Cal.Gov.Code § 845.6 or the Los Angeles Police moratorium. Any failure to give a presumption instruction could not have affected the verdict. See United States v. Valle-Valdez, 554 F.2d 911, 916 (9th Cir. 1977) (nonconstitutional errors generally are measured against the more probable than not standard).

C. Admissibility of Evidence.

Maddox sought to introduce evidence that during a Police Department disciplinary proceeding defendant Officer Harris admitted to violating the City policy on use of the choke hold. The district court found this evidence was inadmissible under Fed. R.Evid. § 403 because its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value. The court also found this evidence inadmissible because the disciplinary proceeding constituted a remedial measure within the meaning of Fed.R.Evid. § 407. We review the trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence for abuse of discretion. M.A.P. Oil, 691 F.2d at 1310.

The Internal Affairs investigation and measures taken by the defendant City were remedial measures taken after the incident. Pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. § 403, evidence of these proceedings was therefore properly excluded with respect to the City’s liability. See Boeing Airplane Co. v. Brown, 291 F.2d 310, 315 (9th Cir.1961) (subsequent remedial measures are inadmissible with regard to the issue of prior negligence); Luera v. Snyder, 599 F.Supp. 1459, 1463 (D.C.Col.1984) (testimony of changes in police department’s policies are inadmissible as evidence of a subsequent remedial measure); Fed.R.Evid. § 407.

With regard to Officer Harris’ liability, the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding this evidence pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. § 403. This evidence arguably had little probative value. There was substantial evidence before the jury concerning the reasonableness of the officer’s conduct in relation to the Los Angeles Police Commission’s moratorium on choke hold use. For example, evidence went to the jury regarding the Police Department standards and training on choke hold use, including the fact that the Department had issued a moratorium on choke hold use except in life-threatening situations.

The prejudicial effect of this evidence was also arguably great. The jury might have inferred that Officer Harris was guilty of wrongdoing merely because the Police Department conducted disciplinary proceedings. The jury might have given unfair or undue weight to this evidence or they might have been confused as to the relevance of this evidence. Although this *1418evidentiary issue presents a close question, this court’s job is not to reengage in a balancing of the probative value and prejudicial effect. See Longenecker v. General Motors Corp., 594 F.2d 1283, 1286 (9th Cir.1979) (“The Rule 403 weighing process is primarily for the district court to perform”). We are limited in our review to determination of whether the district court abused its discretion when it engaged in the balancing process. Id. Upon review of all the circumstances in this ease we find no abuse of discretion. United States v. Diggs, 649 F.2d 731, 737 (9th Cir.) (district court is accorded wide discretion in deciding whether to admit evidence under Rule 403), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 970, 102 S.Ct. 516, 70 L.Ed.2d 387 (1981).

D. Proposed Special Verdict.

Maddox sought an instruction in her proposed special verdict directing the jury to find the defendants liable even if the defendants only aggravated a pre-existing physical condition that resulted in injury or death. The district court need not give every instruction proposed by counsel so long as the instructions adequately cover each element of the case. Hatrock v. Edward D. Jones & Co., 750 F.2d 767, 774 (9th Cir.1984). Examination of the court’s special verdict form reveals that it adequately addressed all the issues in the case.

The court instructed the jury that, Thus the plaintiff is entitled to findings in this case if you find in accordance with my instruction that a defendant was negligent; and, (2) that such negligence was a proximate cause of injury or death to Donald Wilson.

Negligence is the doing of something which a reasonably prudent person would not do or the failure to do something which a reasonably prudent person would do under circumstances similar to those shown by the evidence. It is the failure to use ordinary or reasonable care.

In addition, the special verdict form asked the jury to determine whether any of the defendants were negligent and, if so, whether this negligence was a proximate cause of the decedent’s death. The jury instructions coupled with the special verdict adequately set forth the principles of negligence and proximate cause.

Even assuming Maddox was entitled to the requested thin-skulled plaintiff instruction or some variation thereof, the failure to give this instruction is not reversible error in this case. The jury found that none of the defendants were negligent. It specifically found the defendants’ conduct was reasonable. The jury therefore was never required to decide the issue of proximate cause of death. Any alleged error in failing to instruct the jury about pre-existing conditions and the proximate cause of death cannot be a basis for reversal since the jury found the defendants’ conduct to be reasonable under all circumstances. See Haddad v. Lockheed California Corp., 720 F.2d 1454, 1459 (9th Cir.1983) (error in civil trial must more probably than not taint the jury’s verdict to constitute reversible error).

AFFIRMED.

OPINION OF THE COURT

A. LEON HIGGINBOTHAM, Jr., Circuit Judge.

In this appeal, we review a district court’s refusal to allow evidence of a warning decal to be used for impeachment, under the impeachment exception to Fed.R. Evid. 407, on grounds that such evidence was inadmissible under Fed.R.Evid. 403. Upon our review of the record and relevant case law, we conclude that the district court committed error and vacate the judgment of the district court.

I.

The facts of this case are well summarized in our previous opinion, Petree v. Victor Fluid Power, Inc., 831 F.2d 1191 (3d Cir.1987) (“Victor Fluid I”). To the extent that it is necessary for a complete understanding of the present appeal, we review those facts.

David Petree (“Petree”) brought this *36Pennsylvania diversity action1 to recover for injuries he sustained on April 20, 1983 while working at Empire Steel Castings, Inc. (“Empire Steel”), his place of employment, when he was struck in the side of the face by a steel spacer bar that was ejected from a hydraulic press being operated by a fellow employee. The press had been manufactured and sold to Petree’s employer in 1959 by Rodgers Hydraulic, Inc., the predecessor corporation to the defendant Victor Fluid Power, Inc. (“Victor Fluid”).

Petree filed an action for damages in district court, pleading both strict liability and negligence. In particular, Petree claimed that the offending machine had been defectively designed, and that there had been a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the use of the product. Victor Fluid claimed in defense that the machine was not unreasonably dangerous when it left the manufacturer’s possession, and that the accident had been caused by substantial changes in the press and by improper care that could not have been foreseen by the manufacturer.

Although Petree had abandoned his theory of negligence at pretrial conference, immediately prior to trial he moved to amend the pretrial order to include a theory of negligent failure to warn, and to admit into evidence a decal warning of projectile hazard that Victor Fluid had begun placing on all new hydraulic presses in 1980.2 The district court denied the motion to amend the pretrial order, holding that Petree’s negligence theory, which was based on a manufacturer’s continuing duty to warn of hazards discovered after the product is sold, had no support in Pennsylvania law. The district court also denied admission of the warning decal on grounds that it was irrelevant under § 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts,3 and even if relevant, Rule 407 of the Federal Rules of Evidence would apply to exclude the decal.

The matter proceeded to a jury trial and, at the close of Petree’s case, Victor Fluid moved for a directed verdict on Petree’s strict products liability claims. The district court granted the motion with respect to the issue of failure to warn, and, accordingly, did not submit that issue to the jury. Subsequently, the jury returned a verdict in Victor Fluid’s favor on the defective design issue. Judgment for Victor Fluid was entered in accordance with the jury’s verdict, and Petree appealed.

On appeal, we determined that there was sufficient evidence to go to the jury on question of failure to warn, and thus vacated the district court’s grant of a directed verdict to Victor Fluid and remanded for a new trial on this issue.4 We also addressed Petree’s contention that the 1980 warning decal was admissible because it showed that Victor Fluid was aware of the projectile hazard before the time of Petree’s injury in 1983, and that Rule 407 did not apply since it only excluded evidence of remedial *37measures taken after an injury occurs.5 Petree further contended that the decal was admissible to impeach the testimony of Victor Fluid’s expert witness, William Eaton (“Eaton”), who allegedly denied the feasibility of precautionary measures.

We noted that the application of Rule 407 to strict products liability actions based on § 402A of the Restatement had been reaffirmed in Josephs v. Harris Corp., 677 F.2d 985, 991 (3d Cir.1982).6 In that case, evidence of a warning sticker placed on a printing press, subsequent to plaintiffs injury, was ruled inadmissible under Rule 407. However, Josephs had not addressed the question — before us in Victor Fluid / — of the relevance or admissibility, in a strict products liability action, of subsequent remedial measures taken after the date of sale but prior to the date of injury.

In affirming the district court’s denial of Petree’s motion to admit the warning decal into evidence, we held that the decal, while relevant, was inadmissible under Rule 407 “where the manufacturer’s liability is predicated on a theory of failure to warn of danger from improper use of the product by the customer.” 831 F.2d at 1198. We reasoned that

[t]he danger from a particular use by the customer must be foreseeable at the time of sale [in order to invoke products liability]. Consequently^] the policies supporting Rule 407 counsel exclusion of proof of subsequent remedial measures when offered in strict liability cases as an admission that the product was defective at the time of sale.

Id. Yet, we did not rule out Petree’s claim that the warning decal was admissible to impeach Eaton’s testimony. We noted that “evidence of remedial measures which is inadmissible for one purpose under Rule 407 would still be available if offered for the purpose of impeachment.” Id. We declined to discuss the matter further, however, since the issue of impeachment was moot in light of our decision to remand the case for a new trial on the question of failure to warn.

Upon remand, as in the first trial, Victor Fluid called Eaton, a professional engineer, as an expert witness to testify. Eaton opined that the danger of metal spacers being ejected from the hydraulic press while in operation had been designed out of the equipment as it was sold in 1959. He testified that Empire Steel had added the risk of projectile hazard back into the press when it permanently set the bolster table of the press in its lowest position — thereby creating the need for use of large metal spacers — and operated the press with a bent ram dripping hydraulic fluid. Eaton further opined that Empire Steel’s alterations of the press were not a reasonably foreseeable use when the press was sold by the manufacturer in 1959.

Petree’s counsel, upon cross-examination, sought to impeach Eaton’s testimony with evidence of the warning decal. The district court once again denied the admission of the decal on grounds that such evidence, while admissible under the impeachment exception to Rule 407,7 was barred under Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence since its probative value was outweighed by its potential for confusing the issues, misleading the jury and unfairly preju*38dicing Victor Fluid’s defense.8 Thereafter, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Victor Fluid on the failure to warn issue. Judgment was entered on November 28, 1988 in accordance with the verdict, and this appeal followed.

Petree appeals on grounds that the district court committed reversible error in not permitting evidence of the 1980 warning decal to be used to impeach Eaton’s testimony. We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1982). In this opinion we shall first survey the use of the impeachment exception to Rule 407 and then discuss its relevance to the merits of this case.

II.

Rule 407 (quoted at note 5) specifically provides that its proscription on a party’s use of evidence of subsequent remedial measures “to prove negligence or culpable conduct” does not require the exclusion of such evidence “when offered for another purpose, such as ... impeachment.” Fed. R.Evid. 407 (emphasis added).

We recognized the impeachment exception to Rule 407 in Kenny v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transp. Auth., 581 F.2d 351 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1073, 99 S.Ct. 845, 59 L.Ed.2d 39 (1978). In that case, we held that the trial judge did not err in admitting, for purposes of impeachment, evidence of the installation of a new lighting fixture four days after a rape had occurred in a train station of the Philadelphia transit system. An employee of the transit system had testified that the lighting at the stations was inspected on a daily basis, and that blown light bulbs were replaced. In upholding the admission of evidence of the new lighting fixture to impeach that testimony, we held that “when the defendant opens up the issue by claiming that all reasonable care was being exercised at the time [of the incident], then the plaintiff may attack that contention by showing later repairs which are inconsistent with it.” 581 F.2d at 356 (citation omitted).

Other courts of appeals have also recognized that Rule 407 permits evidence of subsequent remedial measures to be used for impeachment purposes. See Muzyka v. Remington Arms Co., Inc., 774 F.2d 1309, 1313-14 (5th Cir.1985)(where defendant’s experts opined that rifle in question was best and safest rifle on market, trial judge erred in not permitting plaintiff to proffer evidence of subsequent design change for impeachment); Public Service Co. v. Bath Iron Works Corp., 773 F.2d 783, 791-93 (7th Cir.1985)(in action against manufacturer arising from failure of product to perform properly its intended use, trial court improperly excluded evidence of design plans, prepared subsequent to said failure, that were proffered to impeach witnesses’ testimony that former design plans were adequate); Anderson v. Malloy, 700 F.2d 1208, 1212-14 (8th Cir.1983)(district court committed prejudicial error in excluding evidence of subsequent installation of safety chains and “peep holes” to impeach defendants’ testimony that they had done everything possible for a secure motel); Bickerstaff v. South Central Bell Telephone Co., 676 F.2d 163, 167-69 (5th Cir.1982)(trial court committed error, although harmless error, in not allowing testimony of consultant for defendant telephone company, called as adverse witness by plaintiff, and company’s engineering expert to be impeached by subsequent warning given by company to its subscribers); Patrick v. South Central Bell Tel. Co., 641 F.2d 1192, 1195-97 (6th Cir.1980)(trial court properly admitted evidence of subsequent remedial repairs to impeach the testimony of defendant’s expert witnesses that cables in question met statutory minimum height at time of accident); Dollar v. Long Mfg., N.C., Inc., 561 F.2d 613, 618 (5th Cir.1977)(re-versible error for trial judge not to have allowed plaintiffs to impeach defendant’s design engineer in products liability case *39by asking him about a letter he sent to dealers warning them of “death dealing propensities” of product when used in fashion employed in that case), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 996, 98 S.Ct. 1648, 56 L.Ed.2d 85 (1978).

However, many of these same courts have recognized that Rule 407’s impeachment exception must not be used as subterfuge to prove negligence or culpability of the defendant. See Hardy v. Chemetron Corp., 870 F.2d 1007, 1010-12 (5th Cir.1989)(trial court properly excluded evidence of subsequent rewiring proffered to impeach defendant’s testimony that negligent wiring had not caused plaintiff’s injury); Probus v. K-Mart, Inc., 794 F.2d 1207, 1209 (7th Cir.1986)(where plaintiff’s expert testified that plaintiff’s fall was caused by a defective end cap on the ladder, which defendant manufacturers’ expert then denied, trial court did not err in excluding evidence proffered for purposes of impeachment that defendants had changed the material used in making the end caps; it was insufficient that evidence of the subsequent remedial measure would impeach defendants’ testimony since, if that were the sole requirement, the exception would be elevated to the rule); Public Service Co. of Indiana v. Bath Iron Works Corp., 773 F.2d at 792 (“[impeachment] exception must be applied with care, since ‘any evidence of subsequent remedial measures might be thought to contradict and so in a sense impeach [a party’s] testimony that he was using due care at the time of the accident’ ”)(quoting Flaminio v. Honda Motor Co., 733 F.2d 463, 468 (7th Cir.1984)); Bickerstaff v. South Central Bell Tel Co., 676 F.2d at 168 & 169 n. 6 (court discussed danger that the impeachment exception could swallow the rule insofar as it is utilized in cross-examination of adverse witnesses; court did not reach issue of whether trial judge would have abused his discretion if he had excluded the evidence, as tending to prove negligence, under the guise of impeachment).

The leading commentators on the Federal Rules of Evidence have noted this tension associated with applying the impeachment exception to Rule 407. Professor Wright voices a strong concern that the “exception” has the capacity to engulf the “rule.” As an illustrative example, Wright explains that “it is doubtful that the plaintiff, at common law, could have called the defendant to the stand, asked him if he thought he had been negligent, and impeached him with evidence of subsequent repairs if he answered ‘no.’ ” 23 Wright & Graham, Federal Practice and Procedure § 5289, at 145 (1980) (footnote omitted). Similarly, Professor Moore warns that “the trial judge should guard against the improper admission of evidence of subsequent remedial measures to prove prior negligence under the guise of impeachment.” 10 Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 407.04, at IV-159 (2d ed. 1988). Judge Weinstein also admonishes that “[c]are should be taken that needless inquiry and concern over credibility does not result in unnecessarily undercutting the policy objective of the basic exclusionary rule.” 2 Weinstein & Berger, Weinstein’s Evidence ¶ 407[05], at 407-33 (1988).

To guard against the impeachment exception being used as a loophole for bringing in evidence to prove negligence under Rule 407, the commentators advise that trial judges not abandon their discretionary authority to exclude the use of such evidence. Wright notes that “the probative worth of the [impeachment] evidence ... may vary and with it the power of the trial judge to exclude it under Rule 403.” 23 Wright & Graham, suyra, at 148. Professor Moore suggests that

the trial judge has broad power to insure that remedial measures evidence is not improperly admitted under the guise of the [impeachment] exception.... [I]f the trial judge concludes that factors of undue prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury or waste of time outweigh the probative value of the evidence, he may exclude the evidence under Rule 403.

10 Moore, suyra, § 407.02, at IV-153 (footnotes omitted). Judge Weinstein also recommends that “[b]efore permitting the use of such evidence for impeachment, the trial court should ascertain whether the general *40standards for admissibility under Rules 401 and 403 are met.” 2 Weinstein & Berger, supra, at 407-34 (footnote omitted). Moreover, the Advisory Committee’s Note to Rule 407 states that, in evaluating the admission of subsequent repairs under the impeachment exception, “the factors of undue prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, and waste of time remain for consideration under Rule 403.” Fed.R. Evid. 407 advisory committee’s note.

III.

A.

The trial court in the case sub judies did follow the advice of the commentators and subject the warning decal to Rule 403’s balancing test before deciding on whether such evidence was admissible to impeach Eaton's testimony under Rule 407. We must now decide whether the court acted properly in refusing to admit evidence of the decal. We review the district court’s exclusion of evidence, pursuant to the balancing of considerations under Rule 403, “with substantial deference.” McQueeney v. Wilmington Trust Co., 779 F.2d 916, 922 (3d Cir.1985)(citing United States v. Lebovitz, 669 F.2d 894, 901 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 929, 102 S.Ct. 1979, 72 L.Ed.2d 446 (1982)). Despite this highly deferential standard, we find that the district court abused its discretion.

In conducting the Rule 403 balancing test, the district court rested its decision not to admit the decal as impeachment evidence upon two considerations. The court’s first basis was its belief that the decal would be unfairly prejudicial since the jury, in finding no design defect in the first trial, had already decided that the press was safe for its intended and reasonably foreseeable use when sold in 1969. The court reasoned:

I think it’s significant that this is the second trial and that at the first trial the jury answered an interrogatory and that interrogatory was as follows, “Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that the 200 ton shop press was in defective condition, that is unsafe for its intended or reasonably foreseeable use when it left the possession of Rodgers Hydraulic, Inc. in 1959?” The jury answered that [“]no.[”]

Trial Tr. at 22, reprinted in Appellants’ App. at 248.

We find the court mistaken in its understanding of the impact of the earlier jury verdict with respect to design defect on the issue of failure to warn. We specifically held in Victor Fluid I that “the jury was not instructed [in the first trial] that it might find a defect in the failure to warn of hazards which could not be eliminated, and in fact was specifically told by the judge that the issue of warnings was not in the case.” 831 F.2d at 1196 (emphasis added). Contrary to the district court’s reasoning, the decal evidence if admitted to impeach Eaton’s testimony, would not have impeached it on a point already decided favorably to the defendant at the first trial, since the issue of failure to warn of danger inherent in the intended and reasonably foreseeable use of the press issue was not addressed in the first trial. Therefore, we find that the district court’s exclusion of the warning decal as impeachment evidence on this basis was an abuse of discretion.

The second basis for the trial court’s exclusion of the decal under Rule 403 was that Victor Fluid had demonstrated that Petree’s employer, Empire Steel, had made substantial changes in the design of the press. The court held that

I think it’s also significant that changes made by Empire Steel ... were made before 1980. And, of course, it’s the position of defendant ... that they altered the basic design of the press and Mr. Eaton, defendant’s expert, has so testified. *41even alteration or misuse of the consumer does not provide an absolute defense to a charge of strict liability. Under Pennsylvania law, only unforeseeable contributory conduct by the consumer will insulate the manufacturer from strict products liability, and the question of foreseeability is for the jury. Greiner v. Volkswagenwerk, 540 F.2d 85, 95 (3d Cir.1976).

*40Trial Tr. at 22, reprinted in Appellants’ App. at 248.

Presumably, the court reasoned that the decal would mislead the jury into thinking that there were inherent dangers in the normal use of the press, when Victor Fluid had shown that any dangers were the result of misuse of the press on the part of Petree’s employer. However, with respect to the issue of failure to warn, we noted in Victor Fluid I that

*41There is adequate evidence of record from which the jury could find a latent danger of ejection of metal due to the foreseeable improper set-up or misuse of the press by the purchaser or its employees.

831 F.2d at 1195 (emphasis added).9 Since the district court did not appreciate that the mere fact that Empire Steel had made changes in the press was not dispositive on the issue of strict products liability, its exclusion of the decal as impeachment evidence on this basis was also an abuse of discretion.

Because of its conclusory reasoning for excluding the warning decal, the district court did not decide the more vexing question of whether the decal could be properly admitted to impeach Eaton’s testimony that .there was no inherent danger in the use of the press, and that the improper set-up and misuse of the press by Empire Steel were not a reasonably foreseeable use of the product. However, we are compelled to provide some comment, given our discussion of the issue in part II of this opinion.

In our view, Victor Fluid’s decal warning of projectile hazard was admissible for impeachment purposes. Given Eaton’s opinion that the danger of metal spacers being ejected from the press had been designed out of the product at the time it was sold to Empire Steel, and that there was no need to warn of projectile hazard as a result, evidence of the decal served directly to contradict Eaton’s claim. Moreover, contrary to Victor Fluid’s contention that the decal lacked probative value since it was placed on presses 21 years after the press in question was manufactured, the decal’s warning against improper use of the equipment was relevant to the issue of whether Empire Steel’s misuse of the press was reasonably foreseeable. While we are cognizant of the danger of unfair prejudice that admission of the warning decal would pose, that problem could have been alleviated by the trial court instructing the jury that the decal was not an admission by Victor Fluid that there was a projectile hazard in the use of the press when sold.

We note in this regard that the Advisory Committee’s Note to Fed.R.Evid. 403 provides, inter alia, as follows:

In reaching a decision whether to exclude on grounds of unfair prejudice, consideration should be given to the probable effectiveness or lack of effectiveness of a limiting instruction. See Rule 106 [now 105] and Advisory Committee’s Note thereunder....

B.

Although we have concluded that the district court abused its discretion in excluding evidence of the decal, we must now decide whether the court’s error so substantially affected Petree’s rights as to amount to reversible error. Fed.R.Civ.P. 61; Fed.R.Evid. 103(a); 28 U.S.C. § 2111 (1982). Our standard of review of a district court’s nonconstitutional error in a civil suit requires that we find such error harmless only if it is highly probable that the error did not affect the outcome of the case. McQueeney v. Wilmington Trust Co., 779 F.2d at 917. Upon our review of the record, we find that the trial court’s error in this case was not harmless.

Eaton was the star witness for the defense. He repeatedly denied that there was any possible hazard from the press and especially any projectile hazard. App. *42at 278a-280a, 291a, 293a-321a. Eaton testified that the mechanical operation of the press, specifically the adjustable bolster table, eliminated any possibility of a work piece shooting out from the press, and that under no circumstances could this model press eject a work piece. Eaton testified that there was no need or reason to use spacers or extensions and in essence, denied that a warning would serve any purpose. See id. The jury, which found for the defendant, almost surely credited this testimony.

In our view it would be potentially devastating cross-examination had the plaintiff been able to confront Eaton with Victor Fluid Power’s pre-injury warning, which totally contradicted his testimony. Eaton would have had to explain the contradiction between his opinion and that of his client. The district court’s ruling in effect permitted Eaton to deny every hazard contained in his client’s pre-injury warning without being cross-examined or impeached by it. Had the impeachment been permitted the jury may very well have discredited Eaton and rejected his testimony.

Our view is supported by the decision of the Fifth Circuit in a similar case, Dollar v. Long Manufacturing, N.C., Inc., 561 F.2d 613, 618 (5th Cir.1977). The court found reversible error in the trial court’s refusal to allow the defendant’s expert to be impeached with a warning.

One will almost always be able to produce expert testimony to contradict an opponent’s contrary expert testimony. But that is no surrogate for impeachment of the opponent’s sole expert witness. It is too well settled even to require citation that the law permits wide latitude in cross-examination of expert witnesses, including impeachment. To find an error harmless just because a party can introduce evidence to mitigate it would be to trivialize the doctrine of harmless error.10

IV.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court entered on November 28, 1988, will be vacated and the matter remanded for a new trial.

BIRCH, Circuit Judge:

This appeal presents the first-impression issue of whether Rule 407 of the Federal Rules of Evidence applies to exclude evidence of subsequent remedial measures in strict products liability cases. We find that Rule 407 and the exceptions thereto do apply in strict products liability cases. The district court erred in its admonition to the jury to disregard the testimony concerning subsequent remedial measures that was properly admitted for impeachment purposes, and, consequently, erroneously denied Wood’s motion for a new trial. Accordingly, we reverse the denial of the motion for a new trial and remand.

I. FACTS

Appellant, Ruby Wood (“Wood”), seeks recovery from Morbark Industries, Inc. (“Mor-bark”), for the death of her husband, Ginger Wood.1 On February 2, 1989, Ginger Wood and his coworker, John Infinger, were using a wood chipper known as the “Eeger Beever” to chip brush for the City of DeFuniak Springs, Florida. The “Eeger Beever” wood chipper was manufactured by appellee, Mor-bark, and designed by the president of Mor-bark, Norvel Morey. The infeed chute of the wood chipper used by Ginger Wood was seventeen inches long. Although Infinger did not see Ginger Wood when he was pulled into the wood chipper, he heard the machine make an unusual sound. When Infinger turned around, Ginger Wood’s body was lying in the infeed chute of the wood chipper. Ginger Wood’s head, arms, and the upper part of his torso were ablated when the knives of the wood chipper contacted his body.

Wood claims that the wood chipper was defective and unreasonably dangerous because, among other things, the infeed chute was too short to protect the operator adequately. Through an in limine motion, Mor-bark secured under Rule 407 the exclusion of evidence of post-accident design changes that lengthened the infeed chute of the wood chipper. Nevertheless, from the beginning of *1204the trial, counsel for Morbark sought to imply to the jury that the seventeen-inch chute was the safest length chute available and was still in use by DeFuniak Springs as well as other government agencies.

In his opening statement to the jury, Mor-bark’s counsel suggested that there had been no changes to the design of the wood chipper since the accident:

COUNSEL FOR MORBARK: As a matter of fact, the evidence will indicate that after Hurricane Andrew the Army Corps of Engineers ordered thirty machines just like the one that is involved in this case, for disposing of the debris down there.

R4-141-22 (emphasis added).

During his cross-examination of Infinger, Morbark’s counsel once again attempted to leave the jury with the impression that there had been no subsequent change to the design of the infeed chute, and the court permitted Wood’s counsel to rebut that implication:

Q: (counsel for Morbark): Mr. Infinger, are you still actively employed by the City of DeFuniak Springs?

A: Yes, I am.

Q: And do you still work in the same capacity as street maintenance?

A: Yes, I am.

Q: And you still have that Morbark chipper machine?

A: Yes, it’s still there.

Id. at 44.

Q: (counsel for Wood): Mr. Wylie [counsel for Morbark] asked you if the city was still using that machine, Mr. Infinger, and you indicated it had, is that correct?

A: That’s correct.

Q: At Mr. Wylie’s question you answered that. Is that exactly the same machine, Mr. Infinger?

A: It’s the same machine.

Q: Is it exactly the same machine?

A: Same machine.

Q: Has there been any change to the machine?

A: The only changes within the machine is those rollers has been lifted up and there’s been another chute out from the chute that’s on that there.

Q: How has that chute been changed?

COUNSEL FOR MORBARK: Objection, Your Honor, beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q: (Counsel for Wood): How has that chute been changed, Mr. Infinger?

A: Another chute has been, as seen on that, there has been welded another, made it that much longer.

Id. at 51.

Following the examination of Infinger, counsel engaged in the following discussion with the court outside the presence of the jury:

THE COURT: I am a little confused, Mr. Wylie, some matters that you’re objecting] to and the court has sustained the objection at pretrial and then you go right ahead and bring them right up. I want to be sure that objection and when the court sustained that objection that’s on the basis of proffers and arguments that are made and if you change that here, then don’t expect those rulings to apply any longer. If you ask this man and suggest that the city is still using that chipper, it’s certainly fair for the other side to point out that there have been modifications to that chipper.

COUNSEL FOR MORBARK: Well, I think the Court ruled in the pretrial subsequent remedial measures would not be admitted unless the feasibility was—

THE COURT: Well, you opened the door when you started making suggestions to the jury that the city was still using that chipper, therefore, there must not be anything wrong with this chipper if the city still continues to use it on a daily basis and that will be taking unfair advantage of the Court’s ruling. So I suggest that you opened the door to the fair rebuttal that was offered. I still didn’t feel it necessary to go as far into the picture and design and all of that as yet. But I just want to make you aware, rely on that ruling, if those *1205proffers and arguments change during the trial.

Id. at 56.

Near the end of the trial, the following exchange took place during counsel for Wood’s examination of Norvel Morey:

Q: (Counsel for Wood): Isn’t it true that you’re just precluding any possible thing that might occur in everyday life, Mr. Mor-ey, isn’t that true?

A: (Mr. Morey): That’s what the control bar is for, is if there’s a problem, if they get their glove caught or any of their clothes caught they can stop it instantly.

Q: So you think that the control bar takes care of any of the problems this short chute poses as a danger to the user?

A: I’ve said it once and a thousand times, it’s the safest length chute you could possibly put on the machine.

Q: Yet you’re selling them to the Army Corps of Engineers longer?

COUNSEL FOR MORBARK: Objection.

THE COURT: Do you wish to go into it?

COUNSEL FOR MORBARK: No, I thought we already ruled.

THE COURT: I thought we had, too. I’m going to direct, Mr. Jennings [counsel for Wood], that you not bring this up again. It has no bearing or no relationship to this case. And the jury is directed to disregard any comment that has been made by counsel, any question, any answer that has been elicited from any witness concerning the sale of any additional or extra length chute. Proceed.

Id. at 177 (emphasis added).

In a discussion outside the presence of the jury, Wood’s counsel attempted to clarify the court’s admonition:

COUNSEL FOR WOOD: Your Honor, I would like to apologize to the Court. I was not intending to go against any ruling that the Court had made. I thought that you had previously made a ruling when I was asking about the Army Corps of Engineers, and he made an objection and you overruled his objection. I thought that at that point you had determined that they had opened the door completely.

THE COURT: That’s the same reasoning as the other, is that I did not want to leave the false impression that the machines bought by the Army Corps of Engineers was this machine. No objection to you going into and proving otherwise, but when you continue well beyond that.

COUNSEL FOR WOOD: I was not intending to go beyond your ruling.

Id. at 180.

On September 14,1993, the jury entered a verdict in favor of Morbark, finding that the “Eeger Beever” wood chipper was not unreasonably dangerous as designed and marketed. Wood moved for a new trial on the grounds that the district court committed reversible error when it admonished Wood’s counsel in the .jury’s presence regarding counsel’s attempt on cross-examination of Morey to go into the issue of subsequent remedial measures. The district court denied Wood’s motion for a new trial.

In its order denying a new trial, the district court provided a detailed explanation for its pretrial and trial rulings on the evidentia-ry issue. The court pointed out that it granted Morbark’s motion in limine to exclude any evidence of Morbark’s post-accident extension of the infeed chute because Morbark did not deny feasibility. The court cautioned Morbark’s attorney, however, that if feasibility ever became an issue, then the evidence of subsequent remedial measures would be allowed.

The district court’s order denying the motion for a new trial discussed the direct and cross-examination of Infinger. The district court found that Morbark’s counsel’s cross-examination of Infinger attempted to suggest to the jury that the machine was safe because it was still being used by the City of DeFuniak Springs in an unmodified condition. The district court stated that it felt Morbark’s counsel had misled the jury because the wood chipper being operated by the city had been modified by adding an extension to the infeed chute. Thus, the district court allowed Wood’s counsel to elicit testimony from Infinger regarding the modification of the chute.

*1206The district court went on to discuss its reasoning, explaining that it allowed testimony concerning design changes “solely in an effort to ‘level the playing field/ if you will, because the testimony on direct undoubtedly had left the jurors with the impression that the machine was being used by both the city and the Corps of Engineers in an unmodified state, which clearly was not the case.” R3-137-2.

The district court registered surprise when “plaintiffs counsel delved further into the Corps of Engineers’ use of the chipper the following day during his cross examination of Norvel Morey, the owner of Morbark Industries, Inc.” Id. at 3. Nevertheless, the district court did not find its admonition to plaintiffs counsel and its direction to the jury to be “unduly prejudicial to plaintiffs case, and the Court would have reacted in the same manner to any counsel’s blatant attempt to circumvent a previous ruling by the Court.” Id.

II. ANALYSIS

We review a district court’s denial of a motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion. Insurance Co. of N. Am. v. Valente, 933 F.2d 921, 923 (11th Cir.1991).2 We will only reverse a district court’s rulings concerning the admissibility of evidence where “the appellant can show that the judge abused his broad discretion and that the decision affected the substantial rights of the complaining party.” Murphy v. City of Flagler Beach, 761 F.2d 622, 626 (11th Cir.1985) (citations omitted).

As a threshold issue, we address Wood’s argument that Rule 407 does not apply in products liability cases. She claims that Rule 407 should not apply where there is any reason for the use of evidence of post-accident remedial measures other than to establish the defendant’s negligence. Rule 407 provides that:

When, after an event, measures are taken which, if taken previously, would have made the event less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct in connection with the event. This rule does not require the exclusion of evidence of subsequent measures when offered for another purpose, such as proving ownership, control, or feasibility of precautionary measures, if controverted, or impeachment.

This circuit has not had the opportunity previously to rule on whether Rule 407 applies to bar evidence of subsequent remedial measures in strict products liability cases. Confronted with this precise issue today, we hold that Rule 407 does apply in strict products liability eases when the plaintiff alleges that a product is defective because the design is unreasonably dangerous.3 We are persuad*1207ed that Rule 407 is necessary in such cases to focus the jury’s attention on the product’s condition or design at the time of the accident. As illustrated in our discussion of the remaining issues on appeal, the allowance under Rule 407 of evidence of subsequent measures to prove ownership, control, feasibility or for impeachment provides an adequate balance to prevent defendants from taking unfair advantage of the exclusion.

As an alternative argument to the inapplicability of Rule 407 to this case, Wood contends that the issue of whether subsequent remedial measures are excluded from evidence is a matter of state policy and should be governed by Florida statutes and case law. She argues that Florida case law supports her contention that the district court committed reversible error when it sustained defense counsel’s objection and prevented plaintiff’s counsel from questioning defendant’s president about the modifications made to the “Eeger Beever” wood chippers sold to the Army Corps of Engineers.

In support of her argument that state law applies in this case, Wood urges us to follow the reasoning of Moe v. Avions Marcel Dassault-Breguet Aviation, 727 F.2d 917, 932 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 853, 105 S.Ct. 176, 83 L.Ed.2d 110 (1984), in which the Tenth Circuit concluded that because Rule 407 is based primarily on policy considerations, and because products liability is a state law cause of action, where state eviden-tiary law conflicts with Rule 407, state evi-dentiary law applies. We decline to follow the view asserted by the Tenth Circuit in this matter and adhere to our own circuit’s precedent in diversity cases, holding that federal rules apply to procedural matters, including the admissibility of evidence. Southern Stone Co. v. Singer, 665 F.2d 698, 701 (5th *1208Cir. Unit B 1982); Garwood v. International Paper Co., 666 F.2d 217, 228 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982).

Wood also argues that, even if Rule 407 applies in this case, the district court should have applied one of the exceptions provided in the rule and allowed evidence of subsequent remedial measures to show the feasibility of precautionary measures or for impeachment. Specifically, Wood claims that Morbark’s president controverted the feasibility of Wood’s proposed precautionary measures and, therefore, the trial judge erred in not allowing Wood’s counsel to cross-examine Morbark’s president about post-accident remedial measures taken by Morbark.

The trial court was correct in granting Morbark’s motion in limine to exclude the evidence of post-accident remedial changes to the design of the wood chipper. The trial court also acted properly in cautioning Morbark’s attorney that, if feasibility ever became an issue, evidence of subsequent remedial measures would be allowed. In its order denying Wood’s motion for a new trial, the district court describes its effort to “level the playing field” by allowing limited evidence by Wood for impeachment purposes. R3-137-2. We agree that the admission of the testimony was necessary to prevent the jury from being misled.

In his opening statement, Morbark’s counsel suggested that the wood chipper used by Ginger Wood was not defective because, after the accident, the government “ordered 30 machines just like the one that is involved in this case.” R4-141-22. Morbark’s counsel later elicited testimony from Infinger that left the jury with the impression that DeFun-iak Springs had made no modifications to the wood chipper. The district court correctly determined that Morbark’s counsel’s opening statement, particularly when combined with Morbark’s counsel’s cross-examination of In-finger, took unfair advantage of the court’s in limine ruling and opened the door for rebuttal testimony regarding the subsequent modifications to the chute.

Wood contends that the designer of the “Eeger Beever” wood chipper, Norvel Morey, put the feasibility of using a longer infeed chute at issue when he described the seventeen-inch chute as the “safest length chute you could possibly put on the machine.” R5-142-177. While we do not find that this testimony put feasibility at issue, we do find that it opened the door to impeachment.4 The description of the wood chipper in superlative terms is analogous to the situation in Muzyka v. Remington Arms Co., 774 F.2d 1309, 1313 (5th Cir.1985), where an allegedly defective rifle was described as “the premier rifle, the best and the safest of its kind on the market.” The court in Muzyka found that the jury had been denied evidence that the design was changed within weeks of the subject accident “in impeachment of the experts who spoke in those superlatives.” Id.; cf. Kelly v. Crown Equip. Co., 970 F.2d 1273, 1278 (3d Cir.1992) (evidence of subsequent remedial design changes was not admissible to impeach defendant’s expert where defendant’s expert testified that forklift’s design was excellent and proper but did not testify that the design was the best or the only design possible). By referring to the seventeen-inch chute length as the “safest” length possible, Morey opened the door for impeachment. Wood’s counsel should have been allowed to ask why the supposedly safest design possible was modified after the accident involving Ginger Wood. The failure of the district court to allow impeachment of this witness is not alone enough to show an abuse of the trial court’s broad discretion, but the trial court’s exclusion of the evidence in conjunction with a direction to the jury substantially affected the rights of Wood.

In response to Morbark’s counsel’s objection to plaintiffs attempt to impeach the testimony of Norvel Morey, the court direct*1209ed the jury to “disregard any comment that has been made by counsel, any question, any answer that has been elicited by any witness concerning the sale of any additional or extra length chute.” R5-142-178 (emphasis added). The district court’s admonition to the jury to disregard all testimony about additional chute length substantially disadvantaged Wood by nullifying all the rebuttal testimony it properly allowed during the trial. “It is not for us to decide that the effect of what was excluded might not have altered the jury’s views____ [I]f there is a reasonable likelihood that a substantial right was affected, we should not find the error harmless.” Johnson v. William C. Ellis & Sons Iron Works, Inc., 609 F.2d 820, 823 (5th Cir.1980). Such a sweeping admonition was not harmless in this case.

Morbark argues that, even if the district court did err in giving this instruction to the jury, Wood has no standing to raise an objection to it on appeal because her counsel did not object to the instruction at the time it was given. First, we note that the court’s admonition to the jury was not a part of the formal jury instructions, but, nevertheless, had the same weight as a formal instruction. Second, we find that, although Wood’s counsel did not object in the presence of the jury, he did question the court’s instruction at the conclusion of Morbark’s case, after the jury was excused. At that time, Wood’s counsel attempted to argue that Morbark’s counsel had opened the door. The district court told Wood’s counsel that he was attempting to continue “well beyond” the limited rebuttal testimony the court would allow. R5-142-180. This colloquy between the district court and Wood’s counsel indicates to us that Wood did not waive her objection to the court’s instruction. Nevertheless, even if we determined that Wood did not object to the district court’s direction, we will depart from the rule of waiver when the district court’s instruction amounts to plain error or results in a miscarriage of justice. Ostemeck v. E.T. Barwick Indus., Inc., 825 F.2d 1521, 1533 (11th Cir.1987), aff'd sub nom. Ostemeck v. Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 109 S.Ct. 987, 103 L.Ed.2d 146 (1989).5

III. CONCLUSION

Because Rule 407 applies to bar the evidence of design change in strict products liability cases, we do not find that the trial court erred in its original ruling excluding evidence of Morbark’s use of longer infeed chutes after the accident at issue. After a careful review of the testimony, however, we are persuaded that the posture of the defense and the manner in which the evidence developed at trial required that, under Rule 407, evidence of the design change be permitted for purposes of impeachment. We REVERSE and REMAND for a new trial.

BEAM, Circuit Judge.

Eric McCauley appeals his conviction, following a jury trial, and his 276-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana, possession with intent to distribute marijuana, and money laundering. We affirm the district court.1

I. BACKGROUND

We view the following evidence, presented at trial, in the light most favorable to the guilty verdict. United States v. Hoffman, 626 F.3d 993, 995 (8th Cir.2010). The case against McCauley was initiated in February 2007, after cooperating witness Thomas Grellner was stopped in the St. Louis area with approximately 50 pounds of marijuana in his vehicle. Grellner immediately cooperated by making a recorded call to McCauley and showing law enforcement the two locations where he knew McCauley lived and stored marijuana. Based on the information from Grell-ner, search warrants were obtained and executed at two locations (McCauley’s residence and his stash house) in Columbia, Missouri, leading to the seizure of over 100 kilograms of marijuana and $10,000 in cash.

McCauley, who was present during the execution of the search warrant at his residence, was interviewed there shortly after officers executed the search warrant. According to Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) Special Agent Steve Mattas, who executed the search warrant and conducted the interview, McCauley acknowledged that he had been involved in marijuana trafficking in the past, but stated that he had gotten out of it several years ago. After initial denials, McCauley admitted that he had $10,000 in cash on top of the *1122entertainment center at the house where he was being interviewed. McCauley also admitted that he knew there was marijuana at the other house and that his fingerprints would be on it, but it was not his and he did not want to name the individual to whom it belonged. Mattas also testified (over McCauley’s objection) that, during the interview, he asked McCauley if he wanted to cooperate. McCauley responded that he was considering it and that he could arrange a 200-pound marijuana transaction, but that he wanted to discuss it with an attorney before proceeding. McCauley was given until the following day to decide, and when he did not contact Mattas, Mattas obtained an arrest warrant. Mattas returned to McCauley’s residence, but McCauley was not there. A person at the residence got McCauley on the phone and Mattas advised McCauley to turn himself in. He did not do so immediately, but was nonetheless initially indicted in March 2007 and eventually voluntarily surrendered in May 2007. Upon his surrender and after his initial appearance, McCauley was immediately released on bond for supervised pretrial release. Evidence at trial indicated numerous pretrial supervision violations, most involving the sale of narcotics. On December 11, 2008, almost two years after these search warrants were executed in February 2007, cooperating witness Jeff Heath made a controlled buy of 6 ounces of marijuana from McCauley for approximately $2000. In a follow-up to that controlled buy, on December 18, 2008, police located a white Lincoln parked near the Country Club Plaza in Kansas City. Officers searched the vehicle and found a duffel bag with 12 pounds of high-grade marijuana in the trunk. Various papers connected to McCauley were found in the car. McCau-ley was arrested following the controlled buy, and his bond was revoked based upon numerous supervision violations on December 17, 2008.

On April 3, 2009, a federal grand jury returned a fifth superseding indictment against McCauley and two co-defendants. As relevant to this appeal, McCauley was charged with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 1,000 kilograms of marijuana, as well as a variety of other' narcotics and money laundering offenses, ih violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846, and 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1956, and 1957. The other two co-defendants pled guilty, and on March 14, 2011, McCauley alone proceeded to trial.

In addition to law enforcement testimony, numerous other cooperating witnesses at trial described McCauley’s involvement in the marijuana and money laundering conspiracy between 2005 and 2008. Also at trial, McCauley attempted to establish, through argument and cross-examination, that after the search of his residence in February 2007, he did not have further interaction with the “old” conspiracy members, and instead began another distribution operation with different individuals. He asserts that the witnesses all testified that they bought from or sold for him either before February 2007 or after, but not during both time periods. Although he requested jury instructions regarding multiple conspiracies (proffered instructions 11 and 11A), the district court ruled that the evidence did not support a multiple conspiracy instruction. The court did, however, allow McCauley’s counsel to make the multiple conspiracy argument to the jury during closing argument. After two days of testimony and evidence, the jury found McCauley guilty of the lesser-included charge of conspiracy to distribute over 100 kilograms of marijuana on count one, and guilty on all of the remaining counts.

At sentencing, the district court overruled several of McCauley’s objections to the Presentenee Investigation Report *1123(PSR) and calculated a total offense level of 41 and a criminal history category of III, which resulted in an advisory Guidelines range of 860 months to life imprisonment, although the Guidelines range was effectively capped at the statutory maximum of 570 years. The court then considered arguments by both parties as well as the sentences of prior defendants with similar convictions, and ultimately varied downward, sentencing McCauley to 276 months in prison. McCauley appeals, arguing that the district court erred in refusing to grant his motion for judgment of acquittal, in refusing to give the instructions regarding multiple conspiracies, in refusing to grant his motion in limine to exclude statements he made about his potential cooperation with authorities, and in sentencing him to a substantively unreasonable sentence.

II. DISCUSSION

We review the district court’s denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal challenging the sufficiency of evidence de novo, and reverse only if, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, “no reasonable jury could have found [the defendant] guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Winn, 628 F.3d 432, 439 (8th Cir.2010). We review the district court’s jury instructions and evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Yielding, 657 F.3d 688, 708 (8th Cir.2011) (jury instructions); United States v. Gianakos, 415 F.3d 912, 919 (8th Cir.2005) (denial of motion in limine).

A. Single Versus Multiple Conspiracy

McCauley argues that the government’s proof as to count one was insufficient because the evidence showed multiple conspiracies, not the single conspiracy as charged in the indictment. According to McCauley, the government’s proof showed only disconnected activity and at least two distinct conspiracies; one which preceded execution of the search warrant in February 2007 and ended with the arrest, and a second which developed after that time. McCauley further argues that the alleged multiple conspiracies created a variance between the indictment and the proof at trial. McCauley’s final argument with regard to the single/multiple conspiracy theory is that the district court erred in refusing to give his proffered multiple conspiracy instructions.

To prove McCauley’s guilt on count one&emdash;conspiracy to distribute over 100 kilograms of marijuana&emdash;the government was required to show that there was a conspiracy, that McCauley knew of the conspiracy, and that he intentionally joined the conspiracy. United States v. Slagg, 651 F.3d 832, 840 (8th Cir.2011). Whether trial evidence established a single conspiracy “is determined by the totality of the circumstances,” including consideration of the nature and location of activities and events, identities of the co-conspirators, and the time frame in which the acts occurred. Id. at 841-42 (quotation omitted). In addition, “whether the government has proven a single conspiracy or multiple conspiracies is to be resolved by the jury since it is a question of fact as to the nature of the agreement.” United States v. Riebold, 135 F.3d 1226, 1230-31 (8th Cir.1998).

The government primarily argues that McCauley’s activities and the way the conspiracy was continuously carried out by him both before and after the 2007 search warrant shows that there was one ongoing conspiracy, regardless of who helped or participated with McCauley before or after February 2007. McCauley argues that the break following the 2007 search warrant and the new actors he dealt with after that show a new and distinct conspiracy, and that he did not act continuously from 2005 *1124until December 23, 2008, as alleged in the indictment. McCauley cites Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946) in support of his multiple conspiracy argument. McCauley also argues that the evidence of multiple conspiracies created a variance from the indictment. “A variance between an indictment and the Government’s proof at trial occurs if the Government proves multiple conspiracies under an indictment alleging only a single conspiracy.” Slagg, 651 F.3d at 841.

We find there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding of one conspiracy. Two witnesses, Clough and Pierson, dealt with McCauley both before and after the 2007 search warrant. McCauley disputes this, but McCauley himself draws the line separating the supposed separate conspiracies at the February search, and in trial testimony both witnesses aver to dealing with McCauley for an admittedly brief period of time after the February 2007 -search. Pierson testified on direct examination that he stopped dealing with McCauley after McCauley was arrested, which did not occur until McCauley self-reported in May 2007. Upon further questioning, Pierson clarified that he bought about ten more times from McCauley after McCauley’s arrest, a scenario that would have been quite possible given that McCauley was given immediate pretrial release. On cross-examination, Pierson identified the time frame for those ten transactions, testifying that he did not stop dealing with McCauley until the fall of 2007. Similarly, Clough testified that he dealt with McCauley on at least a couple of occasions after the February search warrant. ■

In the instant case, McCauley was the linchpin of a drug conspiracy that evolved over time, and in that regard, the case is much more like Slagg than Kotteakos. See Slagg, 651 F.3d at 842 (holding that one conspiracy may exist despite the involvement of multiple groups and the performance of separate acts). McCauley’s arguments about the evidence showing a variance from the single-conspiracy indictment were also made in Slagg, and we rejected them, noting that a conspiracy may involve drugs from various sources, multiple groups of people, and the performance of separate acts without there being multiple conspiracies. Id. Here, as in Slagg, the evidence supported the existence of a single conspiracy.2

As noted, Kotteakos is distinguishable and, in fact, demonstrates why any possible error with regard to a variance from the indictment in the instant case is harmless. In Kotteakos, thirteen co-defendants were tried at the same time in a case involving a financial conspiracy to defraud the Federal Housing Administration. The key witness, who was the one and only central source dealing with all defendants, had pleaded guilty and testified against the others. 328 U.S. at 752-53, 66 S.Ct. 1239. The evidence against all thirteen defendants tended to show that the central source had transacted business with each defendant to fraudulently procure housing loans, but there was no connection, other than this witness, among the defendants on trial. Id. at 754, 66 S.Ct. 1239. The Court pointed out that the proof at trial *1125made a case “not of a single conspiracy, but of several, notwithstanding only one was charged in the indictment.” Id. at 755, 66 S.Ct. 1239. The Court considered whether this variance between the proof and the indictment was amenable to harmless error analysis, and decided that it was not. The Court held that in the context of the massive trial of numerous defendants, “[t]he dangers of transference of guilt from one to another across the line separating conspiracies, subconsciously or otherwise, are so great that no one really can say prejudice to substantial right has not taken place.” Id. at 774, 66 S.Ct. 1239.

Conversely, here, McCauley was the connection between all of the spokes, and he was the only defendant on trial. Any possible variance between the single conspiracy indictment and possible evidence of multiple conspiracies at trial did not infringe upon McCauley’s substantial rights. Substantial rights are affected when a defendant is “prejudiced by a spillover of evidence from one conspiracy to another” or “could not reasonably have anticipated from the indictment the evidence to be presented against him.” United States v. Barth, 424 F.3d 752, 759 (8th Cir.2005) (quotation omitted). The spillover situation, as explicated in Kotteakos, is not present where McCauley was tried alone. And the indictment, charging McCauley with one continuous conspiracy from 2005 to 2008 reasonably gave McCau-ley notice of the evidence to be presented against him. Accordingly, McCauley’s arguments with regard to the single versus multiple conspiracy theory are without merit.

B. Motion to Exclude Rule 410 Evidence

McCauley next argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying his pretrial motion in limine seeking to exclude testimony by Agent Mattas regarding McCauley’s statements and offers to cooperate during the course of discussions following the execution of the search warrant. Mattas testified that shortly after search warrants were executed at a stash house and at McCauley’s home, McCauley was interviewed in his home and Mattas asked him if he “was interested in trying to help himself out” by cooperating. At that time, McCauley said he was considering it and asserted that he could in fact arrange a large marijuana transaction, but wanted to talk to an attorney before deciding whether, to proceed. Mattas testified that he gave McCauley until 5:00 p.m. the following day to decide, but he did not hear back from McCauley, and when that time expired, Mattas returned with an arrest warrant. However, McCauley had absconded. The government argues that this conversation, which occurred at McCauley’s house directly following the execution of a search warrant, did not constitute plea discussions. We agree.

McCauley points to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 and Rule 410 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Rule 11 states that the admissibility of “a plea, a plea discussion, and any related statement is governed by” Rule 410, and Rule 410 precludes the admission of, among other things, “a statement made during plea discussions with an attorney for the prosecuting authority if the discussions did not result in a guilty plea or they resulted in a later-withdrawn guilty plea.” Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(f); Fed.R.Evid. 410(a)(4). We have previously defined Rule 410’s protection to include conversations with a government agent who has the “express authority to act for the prosecuting government attorney,” even if the government attorney is not present at the time of the. conversation. United States v. Greene, 995 F:2d 793, 799 (8th Cir.1993); see also United States v. Millard, 139 F.3d *11261200, 1205-06 (8th Cir.1998) (excluding evidence of plea negotiations where the prosecutor was involved, though not always present). Greene further stands for the proposition that a government agent’s representation that he had the authority to negotiate a plea bargain might be sufficient to bring any consequent statements within the purview of Rule 410. 995 F.2d at 799. The government agent’s actual authority may be express or implied. Id. at 800. Ultimately, we look to the specific facts and totality of the circumstances in deciding whether a statement is made during the course of plea discussions within the meaning of Rules 11 and 410. United States v. Morgan, 91 F.3d 1193, 1195 (8th Cir.1996). Factors to consider in the “totality” analysis are whether a specific plea offer was made, a deadline to plead was imposed, an offer to drop charges was made, discussions of the Sentencing Guidelines occurred, or á defense attorney was retained. Id. at 1196.

While it is true that Rule 410 is read broadly by our court, even an expansive view of Rule 410 does not cover the situation described here. McCauley had not been charged or even arrested at the time the statements were made. Cf. United States v. Edelmann, 458 F.3d 791, 804-06 (8th Cir.2006) (holding that Rule 410 did not apply to pre-indictment meetings with government agents whom defendant contacted and met with voluntarily seeking to avoid indictment). Although the timing of the conversation before arrest and indictment is not necessarily dispositive, it is certainly a factor in the totality of the circumstances. And, we note that no specific plea offer was made, just an inquiry as to whether McCauley wanted to “help himself out.” There was a deadline imposed, but it was not a deadline to plea, it was a deadline to cooperate. No offer to drop charges was made, obviously, because McCauley had not yet been charged. There is no indication that a discussion of sentencing occurred, and while McCauley indicated he wished to discuss the situation with counsel, it is unlikely he did, as he absconded the next day instead of cooperating. Again, the totality of the circumstances is the ultimate inquiry, but the difficulty of trying to fit the Morgan factors to the situation that occurred here demonstrates the lack of actual plea negotiations. We find that under the totality of the circumstances, plea discussions were not taking place between Mattas and McCauley in February 2007, on the night the search warrant was executed. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to exclude the evidence pursuant to Rule 410.

McCauley also argues on appeal that the statements to Mattas were excludable as unduly prejudicial pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 403. McCauley did not advance this theory in front of the district court, so our review is for plain error. United States v. Worman, 622 F.3d 969, 976 (8th Cir.2010). In this case, there was no plain error or even an abuse of discretion in the court’s decision to admit the evidence, since it was relevant and there was no danger of any unfair prejudice. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s evidentiary rulings.

C. Reasonableness of Sentence

McCauley’s final argument is that the 276-month sentence he received, which was an 84-month downward variance from the advisory Guidelines range, was unreasonable, claiming that the district court unduly relied upon two or three unrelated cases in its proportionality analysis under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6). A district court’s sentencing determinations are reviewed for an abuse of discretion, and should only be reversed if the court “fails to consider a relevant factor that should have received significant weight, gives significant weight *1127to an improper or irrelevant factor, or considers only the appropriate factors but commits a clear error of judgment in weighing those factors.” United States v. Wilcox, 666 F.3d 1154, 1156 (8th Cir.2012) (quotation omitted).

In assessing whether to vary downward from the advisory Guidelines range and contemplating what would constitute a substantively reasonable sentence, the district court considered factors such as McCauley’s damage to society by distributing drugs, his persistent criminal behavior, his use of sophisticated means to launder the drug money, and the amount of drugs distributed throughout the conspiracy. After much consideration, the court decided that a sentence of 276 months, a downward variance from the 360 months to life imprisonment advisory Guidelines range (statutorily capped at 570 years), was substantively reasonable. Where, as here, a district court has varied below the Guidelines range, “it is nearly inconceivable that the court abused its discretion in not varying downward still further.” United States v. McKanry, 628 F.3d 1010, 1022 (8th Cir.2011) (quotations omitted). While the district court did mention its sentencing of other criminal defendants, who were arguably not similarly situated with McCauley, we do not find that the district court abused its discretion by placing any undue weight on those comparisons. McCauley’s sentencing arguments are accordingly without merit.

III. CONCLUSION

We affirm the district court.