Overview
This segment explains how courts determine whether relevant evidence should be admitted, focusing on Federal Rule of Evidence 403 and its balancing test between probative value and prejudicial risks.
Relevance and Its Limits
- Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make a fact more or less likely in a case.
- Most evidence has at least some relevance, making irrelevance objections less common than they might seem.
- The deeper issue is often whether minimal probative value is outweighed by risks like confusion, prejudice, or wasted time.
Rule 403: Balancing Test
- Rule 403 allows a court to exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by dangers such as unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needless cumulative evidence.
- The rule provides significant discretion to judges, using flexible language that allows for different interpretations.
- Exclusion of evidence under Rule 403 is permitted, not required, even if prejudicial risks are found.
Admissibility Emphasis and Judicial Discretion
- The Federal Rules of Evidence favor admitting evidence, with Rule 403 placing a "thumb on the scale" for admissibility.
- Despite the flexible wording, appellate courts sometimes reverse lower courts for not excluding evidence when prejudice substantially outweighs probative value.
- The threshold for exclusion is that prejudice or other risks must "substantially outweigh" the probative value, not just outweigh it.
Balance and Future Considerations
- The core task is balancing probative value against prejudicial risks for all evidence.
- Some rules will adjust this balance for specific circumstances, such as impeachment or differences between civil and criminal cases.
- The balance between these factors should be continually assessed as new rules or issues arise.