Unpublished Flashcard
This flashcard is not publicly visible and is only accessible to admin users.
🔍
Federal Evidence • FRE 403
EVID#012
Legal Definition
A court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of undue prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, or waste of time.
Plain English Explanation
A judge can keep out relevant evidence if its value in helping to prove something is strongly outweighed by the risk that it will unfairly bias the jury, confuse the issues, mislead the jury, waste time, or delay the trial.
The point of a trial is to find the truth and provide justice. To do this, the jury needs to hear all the relevant evidence. However, sometimes evidence that seems relevant can actually do more harm than good by distracting from the main issues or unfairly turning the jury against someone. This rule gives judges the power to keep out evidence that, while relevant, poses too big of a risk of biasing or misleading the jury. This balances fairness to both sides with the search for truth.
The point of a trial is to find the truth and provide justice. To do this, the jury needs to hear all the relevant evidence. However, sometimes evidence that seems relevant can actually do more harm than good by distracting from the main issues or unfairly turning the jury against someone. This rule gives judges the power to keep out evidence that, while relevant, poses too big of a risk of biasing or misleading the jury. This balances fairness to both sides with the search for truth.
Hypothetical
Hypo 1: Bob is on trial for robbing a bank. A witness saw a man with a face tattoo leaving the crime scene. The prosecution wants to show the jury an old mugshot of Bob where he has a face tattoo. Result: The judge may exclude this under 403 because even though it shows Bob once had such a tattoo, the risk of unfair prejudice from seeing Bob's mugshot (and thereby demonstrating his criminal past) substantially outweighs the photo's probative value.
Hypo 2: Bob is accused of punching Sam. The defense offers a video showing that 2 weeks before, Sam had angrily shoved Bob. Result: The video helps show Bob's motive and the nature of their relationship, so its value likely outweighs any prejudice.
Hypo 3: Bob is on trial for causing a car accident. The prosecution wants to show a very graphic photo of the injuries Sam suffered in the crash. Result: The judge decides not to allow the photo because, even though it's relevant, it's so disturbing that it might make the jury unfairly biased against Bob.
Hypo 4: Bob is being tried for assault. His lawyer wants to bring in testimony about Sam's character from a neighbor who doesn't know Sam well. Result: The judge excludes this under FRE 403 because the neighbor's vague opinions could mislead the jury and aren't very helpful to the case.
Hypo 2: Bob is accused of punching Sam. The defense offers a video showing that 2 weeks before, Sam had angrily shoved Bob. Result: The video helps show Bob's motive and the nature of their relationship, so its value likely outweighs any prejudice.
Hypo 3: Bob is on trial for causing a car accident. The prosecution wants to show a very graphic photo of the injuries Sam suffered in the crash. Result: The judge decides not to allow the photo because, even though it's relevant, it's so disturbing that it might make the jury unfairly biased against Bob.
Hypo 4: Bob is being tried for assault. His lawyer wants to bring in testimony about Sam's character from a neighbor who doesn't know Sam well. Result: The judge excludes this under FRE 403 because the neighbor's vague opinions could mislead the jury and aren't very helpful to the case.
Visual Aids
