Relevancy and reasons for excluding relevant evidence - Relevancy

Learning Outcomes

This article explains the basic concept of relevance under the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE). It details the two-pronged test for admissibility: logical relevance under FRE 401 and the discretionary exclusion of relevant evidence under FRE 403 (legal relevance). After studying this material, you will be equipped to define relevance, apply the FRE 401 criteria, understand the general rule of admissibility under FRE 402, and utilize the FRE 403 balancing test to assess when relevant evidence might be excluded due to prejudice, confusion, or efficiency concerns, preparing you for MBE questions on this essential topic.

MBE Syllabus

For the MBE, a thorough understanding of relevance is essential. You are expected to understand the criteria that make evidence relevant and the circumstances under which relevant evidence might nevertheless be excluded. This includes:

  • Defining relevance according to FRE 401, encompassing both probativeness and materiality.
  • Understanding the general principle under FRE 402 that relevant evidence is admissible unless otherwise excluded.
  • Identifying the specific grounds listed in FRE 403 for excluding relevant evidence, such as unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.
  • Applying the FRE 403 balancing test, which permits exclusion only when the probative value is substantially outweighed by these dangers.
  • Distinguishing between logical relevance (the tendency to prove a fact) and legal relevance (admissibility after the FRE 403 balancing).

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. Evidence is relevant under FRE 401 if it:
    1. Conclusively proves a material fact.
    2. Is undisputed by the opposing party.
    3. Has any tendency to make a fact of consequence more or less probable.
    4. Directly pertains to the defendant's character for honesty.
  2. Under FRE 403, a judge may exclude relevant evidence if:
    1. Its probative value is less than its prejudicial effect.
    2. Its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
    3. The evidence is primarily circumstantial rather than direct.
    4. The opposing party strongly objects to its admission.
  3. The concept of "materiality" under FRE 401 means the fact the evidence seeks to prove must:
    1. Be the ultimate issue in the case.
    2. Be "of consequence" to the determination of the action.
    3. Have been mentioned in the pleadings.
    4. Be highly probable based on the evidence.

Introduction

Relevance is the key principle of evidence admissibility. Before any piece of evidence can be admitted, it must be deemed relevant to the case at hand. The Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) establish a two-step process for analyzing relevance. First, the evidence must meet the low threshold of logical relevance under FRE 401, meaning it has any tendency to make a consequential fact more or less probable. Second, even if logically relevant, the evidence must survive the balancing test of legal relevance under FRE 403, where its probative value is weighed against potential dangers like unfair prejudice or confusion. FRE 402 establishes the general rule: relevant evidence is admissible unless excluded by the Constitution, a federal statute, the FRE, or other Supreme Court rules.

Logical Relevance: FRE 401

FRE 401 defines the test for relevance:

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.

This definition incorporates two concepts: probativeness and materiality.

Key Term: Logical Relevance Evidence that satisfies the requirements of FRE 401, meaning it is both probative and material.

Probativeness (Tendency to Make a Fact More or Less Probable)

This is a very liberal standard. The evidence does not need to make the fact conclusively true or even highly probable. It only needs to have any tendency – even a slight one – to shift the probability. If the evidence offered makes the fact slightly more or less likely than it seemed before the evidence was introduced, it is probative. Both direct and circumstantial evidence can be probative.

Materiality (Fact of Consequence)

The fact that the evidence helps to prove or disprove must be legally significant in the case. It must relate to an element of the claim, charge, or defense as determined by the applicable substantive law. Facts concerning witness credibility are also considered "of consequence." Evidence offered to prove a point that is entirely undisputed might technically be relevant but could potentially be excluded under FRE 403 for wasting time.

General Rule of Admissibility: FRE 402

FRE 402 provides the basic rule governing the admissibility of relevant evidence:

Relevant evidence is admissible unless any of the following provides otherwise:

  • the United States Constitution;
  • a federal statute;
  • these rules; or
  • other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court. Irrelevant evidence is not admissible.

This rule emphasizes that relevance is a necessary first step, but other rules (e.g., hearsay, privilege, character evidence rules, or the FRE 403 balancing test) can still lead to the exclusion of logically relevant evidence.

Legal Relevance: FRE 403 Exclusion

Logically relevant evidence is not automatically admissible. FRE 403 grants the trial judge discretion to exclude relevant evidence "if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, waste of time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence."

Key Term: Legal Relevance The principle that relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by pragmatic concerns listed in FRE 403.

The balancing test under FRE 403 is weighted in favor of admissibility. Exclusion is appropriate only when the risks substantially outweigh the probative value.

Grounds for Exclusion under FRE 403

  • Unfair Prejudice: This is the most common ground. Evidence is unfairly prejudicial if it has an undue tendency to suggest a decision on an improper basis, typically an emotional one, such as sympathy, horror, or contempt, or if it might lead the jury to misuse the evidence (e.g., using prior bad acts evidence for propensity).

Key Term: Unfair Prejudice An undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, commonly, though not necessarily, an emotional one, which substantially outweighs the evidence's probative value.

  • Confusing the Issues / Misleading the Jury: Evidence might be excluded if it could distract the jury from the central issues, introduce complex side issues, or if the jury might misunderstand its significance or give it undue weight.
  • Undue Delay / Waste of Time / Cumulative Evidence: Evidence that is only marginally probative might be excluded if it would consume excessive trial time or simply repeats points already established by other evidence.

Worked Example 1.1

In a trial for arson, the prosecution seeks to introduce evidence that the defendant, an avid reader, checked out several books on starting fires from the public library six months before the fire in question. The defendant objects on relevance grounds. How should the court rule?

Answer: The evidence is likely logically relevant under FRE 401. The fact that the defendant researched how to start fires has some tendency to make it more probable that he intentionally set the fire charged. Whether he intentionally set the fire is clearly "of consequence." However, the court might exclude it under FRE 403. The probative value is arguably low given the time lapse (six months) and the fact that merely reading books doesn't equate to criminal action. The danger of unfair prejudice (jury inferring propensity to commit arson from reading habits) or misleading the jury could be argued to substantially outweigh this low probative value. Admissibility depends on the judge's balancing.

Worked Example 1.2

Plaintiff sues Defendant for injuries sustained when Plaintiff slipped and fell on Defendant's icy sidewalk. Defendant denies negligence. Plaintiff offers evidence that Defendant received three official warnings from the city about failing to clear the same sidewalk in the prior winter. Is this evidence relevant and admissible?

Answer: The evidence is logically relevant under FRE 401(a) because prior warnings make it more probable that Defendant was aware of the recurring icy condition and the danger it posed, which relates to the "notice" element often relevant in negligence cases. The fact of Defendant's notice or knowledge is "of consequence" under FRE 401(b). However, its admissibility hinges on FRE 403. The probative value relates to proving Defendant's knowledge of a dangerous condition. The danger of unfair prejudice is significant – the jury might improperly infer that because Defendant was allegedly negligent before, he must have been negligent this time (propensity). The court must balance whether the probative value for notice is substantially outweighed by this prejudicial danger. It could be admitted with a limiting instruction.

Exam Warning

Be precise with the terminology. "Irrelevant" technically means evidence fails FRE 401. Evidence excluded under FRE 403 is relevant but excluded for pragmatic reasons. MBE distractors often blur this line. First, determine if the evidence meets the low bar of FRE 401 relevance. Only then apply the FRE 403 balancing test. Remember the standard for exclusion under FRE 403 is "substantially outweighed," favoring admissibility.

Key Point Checklist

This article has covered the following key knowledge points:

  • Relevance is the basis of admissibility.
  • FRE 401 defines logical relevance: evidence must be probative (any tendency to make a fact more/less probable) and material (fact is of consequence).
  • FRE 402 states relevant evidence is admissible unless excluded by other rules.
  • FRE 403 allows exclusion of relevant evidence if probative value is substantially outweighed by dangers (unfair prejudice, confusion, waste of time, etc.).
  • The FRE 403 balancing test favors admission; exclusion requires substantial outweighing.
  • Logical relevance differs from legal relevance (admissibility after FRE 403 balancing).

Key Terms and Concepts

  • Logical Relevance
  • Legal Relevance
  • Unfair Prejudice
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