Relevance

Rule

FRE 401 — Test for Relevant Evidence Evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.

FRE 402 — General Admissibility of Relevant Evidence Relevant evidence is admissible unless a federal statute, the Constitution, the FRE, or other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court provide otherwise. Irrelevant evidence is not admissible.

FRE 403 — Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of:

• unfair prejudice
• confusing the issues
• misleading the jury
• undue delay
• wasting time
• needlessly presenting cumulative evidence

Elements

FRE 401 — Two-pronged relevance test

1. Probative: Does the evidence tend to make a fact more or less probable? (Even a slight tendency suffices — the standard is low)
2. Material: Is the fact of consequence to the action? (Relates to the substantive law elements in dispute)

FRE 403 — Balancing test

1. Assess the probative value of the evidence
2. Identify the specific danger (unfair prejudice, confusion, etc.)
3. The danger must substantially outweigh probative value for exclusion (tilted in favor of admission)
4. Court has discretion; reviewed for abuse of discretion on appeal

Conditional Relevance — FRE 104(b)

When relevance depends on whether a fact exists, the court may admit the evidence subject to the proponent later proving that the conditioning fact exists. The standard is whether a reasonable jury could find the conditioning fact by a preponderance.

Exceptions / Related Exclusions

Evidence may be relevant but excluded by:

• FRE 404 — Character evidence / propensity
• FRE 407 — Subsequent remedial measures
• FRE 408 — Settlement negotiations
• FRE 409 — Offers to pay medical expenses
• FRE 410 — Pleas and plea discussions
• FRE 411 — Liability insurance
• FRE 501 — Privilege

Policy

• The relevance threshold is intentionally low — “any tendency” — to avoid over-exclusion
• FRE 403 is the primary safety valve; it protects against evidence that is technically probative but practically more likely to cause the jury to decide on an improper basis
• “Unfair” prejudice means prejudice beyond the legitimate harm of evidence against one’s case; all damaging evidence is prejudicial in some sense
• Courts grant significant discretion under 403 because the trial judge is best positioned to assess courtroom dynamics

Key Cases

• Old Chief v. United States — FRE 403 requires comparing probative value of disputed evidence against alternatives the proponent would accept; a stipulation to a prior conviction may substantially reduce probative value of evidence of the name/nature of the conviction

Covered In

• Evidence