Relevancy and reasons for excluding relevant evidence - Exclusion for unfair prejudice, confusion, or waste of time

Learning Outcomes

After reading this article, you will be able to identify when relevant evidence may be excluded due to unfair prejudice, confusion, or waste of time under the Federal Rules of Evidence. You will understand the FRE 403 balancing test, recognize common examples, and apply these principles to MBE-style questions.

MBE Syllabus

For the MBE, you are required to understand when otherwise relevant evidence may be excluded for policy reasons. This article focuses your revision on:

  • The definition of relevant evidence and the general rule of admissibility.
  • The operation of FRE 403: exclusion for unfair prejudice, confusion, misleading the jury, undue delay, or waste of time.
  • The balancing test applied by courts under FRE 403.
  • Typical scenarios where relevant evidence is excluded under this rule.
  • The examiner’s approach to testing this exclusion on the MBE.

Test Your Knowledge

Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision.

  1. Which of the following is NOT a valid ground for excluding relevant evidence under FRE 403?
    1. Unfair prejudice
    2. Confusion of the issues
    3. Lack of authentication
    4. Waste of time
  2. A criminal defendant is on trial for robbery. The prosecution offers graphic crime scene photos. The defense objects under FRE 403. What is the main issue the court must decide?
    1. Whether the photos are hearsay
    2. Whether the photos are more probative than prejudicial
    3. Whether the photos are relevant
    4. Whether the photos are self-authenticating
  3. Under FRE 403, who has the burden of showing that relevant evidence should be excluded?
    1. The party offering the evidence
    2. The party opposing the evidence
    3. The judge
    4. The jury

Introduction

Relevant evidence is generally admissible in court. However, even relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by certain dangers. The Federal Rules of Evidence, specifically Rule 403, allow courts to exclude evidence to prevent unfair prejudice, confusion, misleading the jury, undue delay, or waste of time. This exclusion is a key area for MBE questions.

Key Term: Relevant Evidence Evidence having any tendency to make a fact of consequence more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.

The General Rule: Admissibility of Relevant Evidence

The starting point is that all relevant evidence is admissible unless a specific rule or law provides otherwise. Relevance is a low threshold—almost any evidence that moves the needle on a fact in issue qualifies.

FRE 403: Exclusion for Unfair Prejudice, Confusion, or Waste of Time

Rule 403 gives the court discretion to exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of:

  • Unfair prejudice,
  • Confusing the issues,
  • Misleading the jury,
  • Undue delay,
  • Wasting time, or
  • Needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.

Key Term: Unfair Prejudice The risk that evidence will lead the jury to decide the case on an improper basis, often an emotional one, rather than on the facts.

Key Term: Probative Value The strength of evidence in proving or disproving a fact of consequence in the case.

Key Term: Balancing Test (FRE 403) The process by which a judge weighs the probative value of evidence against the risk of unfair prejudice or other dangers listed in FRE 403.

The Balancing Test

The judge must weigh the evidence’s value in proving a fact against the risk that it will cause one of the listed harms. The danger must “substantially outweigh” the probative value—this is a high bar. The default is to admit the evidence unless the risk is significant.

Common Examples of Exclusion Under FRE 403

  • Graphic photos or videos (risk of inflaming the jury’s emotions).
  • Evidence of prior bad acts offered solely to show character.
  • Cumulative evidence (multiple witnesses saying the same thing).
  • Evidence that confuses the jury or distracts from the main issues.

Worked Example 1.1

In a murder trial, the prosecution offers autopsy photos showing the victim’s injuries. The defense objects under FRE 403, arguing the photos are gruesome and will inflame the jury.

Answer: The court must decide if the photos’ probative value (showing cause of death, intent, or identity) is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice. If the photos are especially graphic and not necessary to prove a disputed point, the judge may exclude them. If they are needed to show an element of the crime, they are likely to be admitted.

Worked Example 1.2

A plaintiff sues for breach of contract. The defendant wants to introduce evidence of the plaintiff’s unrelated criminal conviction to attack credibility. The plaintiff objects under FRE 403.

Answer: The judge will weigh the conviction’s value in assessing credibility against the risk the jury will unfairly judge the plaintiff’s character. If the conviction is for a crime involving dishonesty, it may be admitted. If it is for a violent crime with little bearing on truthfulness, and the risk of prejudice is high, the judge may exclude it.

Exam Warning

FRE 403 is a favorite for MBE questions. Watch for fact patterns where evidence is relevant but could cause the jury to decide the case on emotion or confusion rather than logic. The standard is “substantially outweighed”—mere prejudice is not enough.

Revision Tip

If you see a question where evidence is both highly probative and highly prejudicial, remember: exclusion is the exception, not the rule. The judge must find the danger is substantial.

Key Point Checklist

This article has covered the following key knowledge points:

  • Relevant evidence is generally admissible unless a specific rule excludes it.
  • FRE 403 allows exclusion of relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusion, or waste of time.
  • The judge applies a balancing test, favoring admissibility unless the risk is significant.
  • Common grounds for exclusion include graphic evidence, cumulative evidence, and evidence likely to mislead or confuse the jury.
  • Exclusion under FRE 403 is discretionary and is tested frequently on the MBE.

Key Terms and Concepts

  • Relevant Evidence
  • Unfair Prejudice
  • Probative Value
  • Balancing Test (FRE 403)
The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
AdaptiBar
One-time Fee
$395
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
BarPrepHero
One-time Fee
$299
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350
Quimbee
One-time Fee
$1,199

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal