## **Learning Outcomes**

This article explains the exclusion of relevant evidence under FRE 403, including:

- identifying when evidence, though relevant, faces exclusion for unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, or waste of time;
- applying the 403 balancing test, focusing on who bears the burden and what “substantially outweighs” means in an exam context;
- distinguishing ordinary prejudice from unfair prejudice, especially with graphic photos, prior bad acts, and other emotionally charged forms of proof;
- evaluating alternatives to exclusion, such as limiting instructions, redaction, stipulations, or restricting cumulative witnesses or exhibits;
- analyzing how 403 interacts with other rules (Rules 401–402, 404(b), 609, 105, and 106) in typical bar-style hypotheticals;
- spotting common 403 issues in MBE questions and eliminating distractor answers that rely on mere prejudice or incorrect grounds;
- predicting likely trial-court rulings by weighing probative value, centrality of the fact, availability of less prejudicial proof, and trial efficiency concerns;
- articulating concise rule statements and arguments for both pro-admission and pro-exclusion positions that mirror the reasoning examiners expect.

## **MBE Syllabus**

For the MBE, you are required to understand exclusion of relevant evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence, with a focus on the following syllabus points:

- 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 FRE 403 balancing test and who bears the burden of persuasion
- How FRE 403 interacts with other rules (e.g., limiting instructions under Rule 105, rule of completeness under Rule 106)
- Typical scenarios where relevant evidence is excluded or admitted despite prejudice
- 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?  
   a) Unfair prejudice  
   b) Confusion of the issues  
   c) Lack of authentication  
   d) 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?  
   a) Whether the photos are hearsay  
   b) Whether the photos are more probative than prejudicial  
   c) Whether the photos are relevant  
   d) Whether the photos are self-authenticating

3. Under FRE 403, who has the burden of showing that relevant evidence should be excluded?  
   a) The party offering the evidence  
   b) The party opposing the evidence  
   c) The judge  
   d) The jury

## **Introduction**

Relevant evidence is generally admissible in court, but “relevant” does not mean “automatic entry.” FRE 403 gives the trial judge a safety valve: even relevant evidence can be excluded when its costs significantly outweigh its benefits.

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

Under FRE 401 and 402, relevance is a very low threshold. If a piece of evidence nudges the probability of a material fact in any direction, it is relevant and therefore presumptively admissible. FRE 403 is then used to **limit** that presumption in narrow circumstances.

### 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 a danger of:

- Unfair prejudice
- Confusing the issues
- Misleading the jury
- Undue delay
- Wasting time
- Needlessly presenting cumulative evidence

> **Key Term: Probative Value**  
> The strength of the evidence in proving or disproving a fact of consequence in the case, considering how much it adds beyond other available proof.
>
> **Key Term: Unfair Prejudice**  
> A tendency of evidence to lead the jury to decide on an improper basis—often emotional, such as horror or anger—rather than on a rational evaluation of the facts.

The rule does **not** protect parties from all prejudice. Nearly all evidence offered by one side is prejudicial to the other. FRE 403 targets **unfair** prejudice: prejudice that risks decisions based on emotion, stereotypes, or irrelevant inferences (e.g., “he looks dangerous,” “she is a bad person”).

> **Key Term: Balancing Test (FRE 403)**  
> The process by which a judge weighs the evidence’s probative value against the dangers listed in Rule 403, excluding only when those dangers substantially outweigh the probative value.

### 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. Because relevance is a low bar, FRE 403 is frequently litigated: parties concede relevance but argue that the evidence should nonetheless be kept from the jury.

On the MBE, once you conclude evidence is relevant, you should immediately ask:

- Is there a **specific exclusionary rule** (e.g., hearsay, privilege, character evidence)?
- If not, is there a **strong FRE 403 argument** for or against exclusion?

### The Structure of the FRE 403 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.

Key points about the balancing:

- The **burden** is on the party **opposing** the evidence to show that a 403 danger substantially outweighs probative value.
- The dangers must **substantially outweigh** probative value. This is a **pro-admission** standard; a tie or even a close case usually results in admission.
- The decision is **discretionary**. On appeal, the standard is usually “abuse of discretion.”

> **Key Term: Abuse of Discretion**  
> The deferential standard of appellate review under which a trial judge’s discretionary ruling (such as a 403 decision) will be reversed only if no reasonable judge could have made that ruling.

Because of this deferential standard, 403 questions are almost always tested as **trial-level** rulings, not on appeal.

### Types of Dangers Under FRE 403

FRE 403 lists several distinct dangers. For each, you should know what it means and what kinds of fact patterns raise it.

> **Key Term: Confusing the Issues**  
> A danger that the evidence will draw the jury’s attention away from the main disputed issues and toward collateral matters.
>
> **Key Term: Misleading the Jury**  
> A danger that evidence, though relevant, will cause the jury to give it undue weight or misunderstand what it proves (for example, complex statistics that look more precise than they are).
>
> **Key Term: Cumulative Evidence**  
> Evidence that duplicates what is already established, such that additional proof adds little or nothing of probative value.

#### 1. Unfair Prejudice

Unfair prejudice is often the central 403 concern. Evidence may be unfairly prejudicial when:

- It invites the jury to infer guilt or liability from **character** rather than from the conduct at issue (e.g., prior bad acts to show propensity when not admissible under a specific rule).
- It is **graphic or inflammatory** (e.g., gruesome crime scene photos) where the emotional impact may overwhelm its factual contribution.
- It triggers **bias or stereotypes** (e.g., references likely to provoke racial or other improper biases).

Courts consider:

- Whether the same fact can be proved by **less prejudicial** evidence.
- How **central** the fact is to the case.
- Whether the evidence is likely to provoke an emotional reaction **disproportionate** to its logical relevance.

#### 2. Confusing the Issues or Misleading the Jury

Evidence may confuse or mislead when it:

- Introduces complicated side disputes (mini-trials) on peripheral issues.
- Involves complex scientific, statistical, or financial matters the jury is likely to misunderstand.
- Suggests inferences that are legally improper (for example, settlement negotiations used as if they were admissions).

This is frequently raised with:

- Detailed evidence about **collateral litigation**, insurance coverage, or regulatory proceedings.
- Highly technical expert evidence where the probative value on a narrow point is modest.

#### 3. Undue Delay, Waste of Time, and Cumulative Evidence

403 also protects the efficiency of the trial.

Examples:

- Calling ten witnesses all to testify to the **same point** when three would suffice.
- Offering dozens of nearly identical photographs.
- Spending significant time on an issue the parties do not genuinely dispute.

The more marginal the probative value, the easier it is for concerns about delay or cumulative proof to “substantially outweigh” and justify exclusion.

### The Role of Alternatives: Limiting Instructions and Redaction

Before excluding evidence altogether, courts often consider **less drastic options**, such as limiting instructions or partial exclusion.

> **Key Term: Limiting Instruction**  
> A direction from the judge telling the jury to consider specific evidence only for a permitted purpose and not for any forbidden purpose.

Under FRE 105, when evidence is admissible for one purpose but not another, the court must—on request—give a limiting instruction. For example:

- A prior conviction admitted to **impeach** credibility, but not to show propensity.
- A prior act admitted to show **motive or intent** under Rule 404(b), but not to show character.

Rule 106 (the rule of completeness) plays a related role. If one party introduces part of a writing or recorded statement, the other party may insist that additional portions be admitted if necessary to avoid a misleading impression. This can reduce the risk that a partial quotation will confuse or mislead the jury.

Because these tools are available, many borderline 403 issues are resolved by **admitting** the evidence with appropriate limitations rather than excluding it entirely.

### Common Examples of Exclusion Under FRE 403

Typical categories where the 403 balance may favor exclusion include:

- Graphic photos or videos that risk inflaming the jury’s emotions.
- Evidence of prior bad acts offered in a way that effectively invites a propensity inference, even if nominally tied to some other purpose.
- Cumulative evidence (multiple witnesses or exhibits repeating the same point).
- Evidence that opens a **collateral mini-trial**, diverting the jury from the main issues.

At the same time, evidence that is **highly probative** on a central disputed issue is rarely excluded, even if it is also highly prejudicial. Remember: the standard is “**substantially outweighs**,” not “equals” or “slightly outweighs.”

### **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 (e.g., showing the nature and location of the wounds, supporting intent or identity, or countering a self-defense claim) is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice. If cause and manner of death are disputed, and the photos genuinely assist the medical examiner’s testimony, they are likely to be admitted, possibly with limits on number or size. If the photos are especially graphic, cumulative of less disturbing images, and the manner of death is not disputed, the judge may exclude some or all of them under FRE 403.

### **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 for assessing credibility against the risk that the jury will misuse the conviction to judge the plaintiff’s character. If the conviction is for a felony involving dishonesty (e.g., fraud), Rule 609 favors admissibility, but FRE 403 still allows exclusion if the jury is likely to give it undue weight. If the conviction is for an old, violent offense with little bearing on truthfulness, and the risk of the jury disliking the plaintiff for the crime is high, the judge may exclude it under 403 or limit its use with a strong limiting instruction.

### **Worked Example 1.3**

In a products liability trial, a plaintiff offers evidence of dozens of other customers’ complaints about the same defect. The defendant objects that the evidence will confuse the issues and waste time.

> **Answer:**  
> Other-incident evidence can be probative of notice, defect, or causation. But if each complaint would require separate proof and rebuttal, the risk of side litigation and jury confusion grows. The judge could admit a limited number of representative incidents and exclude the rest as needlessly cumulative or likely to cause undue delay. The 403 balance turns on how many incidents are truly needed to prove notice or defect and how complex they are.

### **Worked Example 1.4**

A prosecutor offers a complex statistical study purporting to show that only 1 in 10,000 people share the same DNA markers as the defendant. The defense argues that the study’s methodology is highly disputed and the jury will be misled by impressive-looking numbers it cannot evaluate.

> **Answer:**  
> The statistics are probative of identity, but if the methodology is contentious and not adequately explained, there is a serious risk the jury will be overawed by numbers it does not understand. The judge may allow the expert to testify but require a clearer explanation, restrict certain charts or summaries, or, in extreme cases, exclude the study under 403 as likely to mislead the jury more than it assists.

### **Worked Example 1.5**

In a civil assault case, the plaintiff wants to call eight eyewitnesses, all of whom will testify to seeing the defendant punch the plaintiff once. The defendant objects that this is cumulative.

> **Answer:**  
> Once several witnesses have testified consistently about the same event, additional identical testimony adds little probative value but prolongs the trial. The judge may permit, say, three or four witnesses and exclude the rest as needlessly cumulative under FRE 403. The defendant does not have a right to be confronted with every possible witness against him in a civil case, and the court may reasonably limit repetitive evidence.

### The Balancing Test in Practice

When applying FRE 403, courts consider both sides of the scale:

**Factors that increase probative value:**

- The fact is **disputed** and centrally important (e.g., identity, intent, or causation).
- There are **no good alternatives** to prove the point.
- The evidence is **reliable** and directly connected to the fact in issue.

**Factors that increase the dangers of 403:**

- The evidence is **emotionally powerful** but adds little beyond what is already known.
- The point it proves is **peripheral** relative to the main issues.
- It would require significant **side litigation** to interpret or rebut.
- It is **repetitive** of other evidence.

On exam questions, look for explicit cues: if the fact pattern says, “The same point could be shown by stipulation or a neutral photograph,” that reduces probative value and strengthens a 403 objection.

### Exam Warning

FRE 403 is a favorite for MBE questions. Common traps include:

- Fact patterns where the evidence is clearly relevant and damaging, and one answer says “inadmissible because it is prejudicial.” Mere prejudice is **not** enough; the danger must substantially outweigh probative value.
- Choices that confuse 403 with **other rules**, such as hearsay or authentication. If the only objection mentioned is 403, assume relevance and focus solely on the balancing.
- Questions about who bears the burden: under FRE 403, it is the **party opposing** the evidence.

When you see evidence that is both powerful and potentially inflammatory, think: “Does the question want me to recognize that the judge has discretion but is likely to **admit** unless the danger is extreme?”

### Revision Tip

When evidence is both highly probative and highly prejudicial, remember:

- **Exclusion is the exception, not the rule.**
- Judges are expected to use **limiting instructions**, redaction, or other controls rather than wholesale exclusion where possible.
- If an answer choice says, “The court must exclude because the evidence is prejudicial,” be wary. FRE 403 almost never uses “must”; it is a **may**-exclude rule based on discretion.

On the MBE, the best answer often acknowledges that the judge has discretion to exclude but predicts admission when the evidence is central and no less-prejudicial substitute exists.

## **Key Point Checklist**

_This article has covered the following key knowledge points:_

- Relevant evidence is generally admissible; relevance under FRE 401 is a low threshold.
- FRE 403 allows discretionary exclusion of relevant evidence when the probative value is **substantially outweighed** by unfair prejudice, confusion, misleading the jury, undue delay, waste of time, or cumulative proof.
- Unfair prejudice means an improper, usually emotional, impact on the jury, not just evidence that hurts a party’s case.
- The burden of showing that FRE 403 warrants exclusion rests on the **party opposing** the evidence.
- Courts often prefer **limiting instructions** or partial exclusion over total exclusion.
- Evidence that is highly probative on a central disputed issue is rarely excluded, even if it is also prejudicial.
- Cumulative evidence, graphic photos, and collateral mini-trials are frequent contexts for 403 exclusion.
- FRE 403 rulings are reviewed for **abuse of discretion**, so trial courts have broad leeway.
- FRE 403 is frequently tested on the MBE; watch for the “substantially outweighs” language and avoid confusing it with other evidentiary rules.

## **Key Terms and Concepts**

- Relevant Evidence
- Probative Value
- Unfair Prejudice
- Balancing Test (FRE 403)
- Confusing the Issues
- Misleading the Jury
- Cumulative Evidence
- Limiting Instruction
- Abuse of Discretion

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