Black-letter propositions
- 01
Consequential facts come from substantive law, credibility, and stipulations.
- 02
Rule 403 favors admission and asks whether unfair prejudice, confusion, misleading effect, delay, waste, or cumulativeness substantially outweighs probative value.
- 03
Unfair prejudice means an improper decision basis, not simply damaging evidence.
- 04
Conditional relevance is admitted if evidence could support a reasonable finding of the connecting fact.
- 05
Completeness can require contextual portions of a writing or recorded statement at the same time.
Use this attack sequence under time
Frame the issue
Name the proposition and consequential element.
Resolve the next checkpoint
Explain the inferential chain.
Resolve the next checkpoint
Assess value in light of alternative evidence.
Finish the conclusion
Identify a specific 403 danger and limiting measure.
Common wrong turns
- Authentication and hearsay are separate from relevance.
- A limiting instruction may reduce prejudice.
- Courts do not exclude proof merely because it strongly damages a party.
Worked example
A gruesome photograph depicts injuries, but cause and severity are undisputed and less inflammatory images are available.
The photo is relevant, but marginal value may be substantially outweighed by unfair emotional impact in context. The court should compare need, detail, alternatives, and possible limiting measures.
Practice this topic
What the rule text says
Federal Rule 401 says evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence, and the fact is of consequence in determining the action. The threshold is low. Rule 402 makes relevant evidence admissible unless the Constitution, a federal statute, the evidence rules or other Supreme Court rules provide otherwise, and it says irrelevant evidence is not admissible.
Rule 403 then lets the court exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence. The word substantially matters: the balance must tip clearly.
Conditional relevance and who decides
Rule 104(b) covers relevance that depends on a fact. Proof must be introduced sufficient to support a finding that the fact exists, and the court may admit the evidence on the condition that the proof is introduced later. Rule 104(a) says the court decides whether a witness is qualified, a privilege exists or evidence is admissible, and in doing so it is not bound by the evidence rules except those on privilege.
Frequently asked questions
What is the controlling rule for logical relevance, conditional relevance, and rule 403?+
Relevant evidence tends to prove a consequential fact and is excluded under Rule 403 only when specified dangers substantially outweigh its contextual value.
How should I analyze logical relevance, conditional relevance, and rule 403 on the bar exam?+
Name the proposition and consequential element. Explain the inferential chain. Assess value in light of alternative evidence.
What is the test for relevant evidence?+
Under Rule 401, evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence and the fact is of consequence in determining the action.
Is all relevant evidence admissible?+
No. Rule 402 makes relevant evidence admissible unless the Constitution, a federal statute, the evidence rules or other Supreme Court rules provide otherwise, and Rule 403 lets a court exclude it.
When can a court exclude relevant evidence under Rule 403?+
When its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasted time or needless cumulative evidence.
What is conditional relevance?+
Relevance that depends on whether a fact exists. Under Rule 104(b), proof must be introduced sufficient to support a finding that the fact exists, though the court may admit the evidence first.
Who decides preliminary questions about admissibility?+
The court, under Rule 104(a), and it is not bound by the evidence rules in deciding them, except the rules on privilege.