Learning Outcomes
After reading this article, you will be able to identify when evidence is relevant, explain the main reasons relevant evidence may be excluded, and apply the concepts of reliability and prejudice to MBE-style questions. You will also understand the distinction between logical and legal relevance, and recognize how reliability concerns and policy rules affect admissibility.
MBE Syllabus
For MBE, you are required to understand the rules governing the admission and exclusion of evidence. This article covers the following syllabus points:
- Distinguish between relevant and irrelevant evidence.
- Identify the difference between logical and legal (pragmatic) relevance.
- Recognize when relevant evidence may be excluded due to prejudice, confusion, or policy.
- Explain how reliability concerns affect the admissibility of evidence.
- Apply rules for excluding evidence based on public policy (e.g., subsequent remedial measures, settlement offers).
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.
-
Which of the following is a reason a court may exclude relevant evidence?
- The evidence is not authenticated.
- The evidence is unreliable.
- The evidence is not material.
- The evidence is offered by the defendant.
-
Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, relevant evidence may be excluded if:
- It is cumulative.
- Its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
- It is offered by a lay witness.
- It is not objected to.
-
Which of the following is NOT a policy-based reason for excluding relevant evidence?
- Settlement offers
- Subsequent remedial measures
- Character evidence in a criminal case
- Evidence of a witness’s bias
Introduction
Evidence law requires that only relevant evidence is admitted at trial. However, not all relevant evidence is admissible. Courts may exclude relevant evidence if it is unreliable, unfairly prejudicial, confusing, or excluded for policy reasons. This article explains how reliability and relevancy interact, and why some relevant evidence is kept out of court.
What is Relevant Evidence?
Evidence is relevant if it tends to make a fact of consequence in the case more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.
Key Term: Relevance Evidence that has any tendency to make a fact of consequence to the determination of the action more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.
There are two types of relevance:
- Logical relevance: The evidence must have some probative value—it must help prove or disprove a material fact.
- Legal (pragmatic) relevance: Even if evidence is logically relevant, it may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by dangers such as unfair prejudice, confusion, misleading the jury, undue delay, or waste of time.
Key Term: Legal Relevance The principle that relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by dangers such as unfair prejudice or confusion.
Reliability and Exclusion of Relevant Evidence
Courts are concerned with the reliability of evidence. Unreliable evidence may be excluded even if it is relevant. Reliability issues arise with hearsay, untrustworthy documents, or evidence obtained in violation of rules.
Key Term: Reliability The trustworthiness or dependability of evidence, affecting whether it should be admitted even if relevant.
Reasons for Excluding Relevant Evidence
Relevant evidence may be excluded for several reasons:
- Unfair Prejudice: Evidence that may lead the jury to decide the case on an improper basis (such as emotion or bias) rather than on the facts.
- Confusion or Misleading the Jury: Evidence that may distract or confuse the jury about the real issues.
- Waste of Time or Cumulative Evidence: Evidence that repeats what has already been established or takes up unnecessary time.
- Policy Exclusions: Certain types of relevant evidence are excluded to advance public policy, such as encouraging settlements or repairs.
Rule 403 Balancing Test
Under Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, a court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion, misleading the jury, undue delay, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.
Key Term: Rule 403 The rule allowing exclusion of relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by certain dangers, such as unfair prejudice.
Policy-Based Exclusions
Some relevant evidence is excluded to further broader policy goals, regardless of its reliability or probative value. Common policy exclusions include:
- Subsequent remedial measures (e.g., repairs after an accident)
- Settlement offers and negotiations
- Offers to pay medical expenses
- Withdrawn guilty pleas
These exclusions are designed to encourage socially desirable conduct, such as making repairs or settling disputes, without fear that such actions will be used as evidence of liability.
Worked Example 1.1
A plaintiff sues a manufacturer after being injured by a defective product. The manufacturer later changes the design of the product to make it safer. At trial, the plaintiff wants to introduce evidence of the design change to show the original product was defective. Is this evidence admissible?
Answer: No. Evidence of subsequent remedial measures is excluded to encourage manufacturers to improve product safety without fear that such improvements will be used as evidence of prior fault.
Worked Example 1.2
During a personal injury trial, the defendant offers to pay the plaintiff’s medical bills if the plaintiff drops the lawsuit. The plaintiff wants to introduce this offer as evidence of the defendant’s liability. Is this evidence admissible?
Answer: No. Offers to pay medical expenses are excluded to encourage parties to assist with medical costs without admitting liability.
Exam Warning
Evidence that is logically relevant may still be excluded if it is unreliable or if its admission would create unfair prejudice, confuse the issues, or waste time. Always apply the Rule 403 balancing test.
Revision Tip
When answering MBE questions, always ask: Is the evidence relevant? If so, is there a reason it should be excluded due to reliability, prejudice, confusion, or policy?
Summary
- Relevant evidence must be both logically and legally relevant.
- Courts may exclude relevant evidence if it is unreliable, unfairly prejudicial, confusing, or wasteful.
- Policy-based exclusions prevent certain types of relevant evidence from being admitted, regardless of reliability.
Key Point Checklist
This article has covered the following key knowledge points:
- Evidence is relevant if it makes a fact of consequence more or less probable.
- Legal relevance allows exclusion of relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by dangers such as unfair prejudice or confusion.
- Reliability concerns can lead to exclusion of otherwise relevant evidence.
- Rule 403 provides the main balancing test for excluding relevant evidence.
- Policy exclusions (e.g., subsequent remededial measures, settlement offers) keep certain relevant evidence out to advance public policy.
Key Terms and Concepts
- Relevance
- Legal Relevance
- Reliability
- Rule 403
