Relevancy and reasons for excluding relevant evidence - Reli...

Learning Outcomes

This article explains how the MBE tests the admissibility and exclusion of relevant evidence, including:

• Distinguishing logical relevance from legal (pragmatic) relevance under FRE 401–403, and recognizing the low bar for probative value.
• Applying Rule 403’s “substantially outweighed” test to fact patterns, weighing probative value against unfair prejudice, confusion, and cumulative proof.
• Evaluating reliability concerns—hearsay, authentication, best evidence, and expert methodology—and determining whether they affect admissibility or only the weight of the evidence.
• Identifying when specific policy-based exclusions (FRE 407–411, 410) override general relevance principles, even where evidence is highly probative.
• Using conditional relevance and predicate facts under FRE 104(b) to decide when evidence tied to another fact can reach the jury.
• Choosing between exclusion and limited admissibility, and understanding how Rule 105 limiting instructions can cure potential prejudice on MBE questions.
• Spotting common MBE traps involving logically relevant but inadmissible evidence, and eliminating answer choices that misstate the “substantially outweighed” standard.
• Integrating relevance, reliability, policy exclusions, and Rule 403 into a systematic approach for analyzing multiple-choice Evidence questions efficiently under exam time pressure.

MBE Syllabus

For the MBE, you are required to understand the rules governing admission and exclusion of evidence, with a focus on the following syllabus points:

• Distinguish between relevant and irrelevant evidence (FRE 401–402).
• Identify and apply the difference between logical and legal (pragmatic) relevance.
• Apply Rule 403 to exclude relevant evidence when its probative value is substantially outweighed by dangers such as unfair prejudice, confusion, or waste of time.
• Explain how reliability concerns (hearsay, expert testimony, authentication, best evidence) affect admissibility.
• Recognize and apply policy-based exclusion rules (e.g., subsequent remedial measures, compromise offers, offers to pay medical expenses, liability insurance, withdrawn pleas).
• Use limited admissibility and conditional relevance when evidence is admissible only for certain purposes or only if a condition of fact is met.

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 a reason a court may exclude relevant evidence?
   1. The evidence is not authenticated.
   2. The evidence is unreliable.
   3. The evidence is not material.
   4. The evidence is offered by the defendant.
2. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, a court may exclude relevant evidence if:
   1. Its probative value is slightly outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
   2. Its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
   3. It is offered by a lay witness.
   4. It is not objected to.
3. Which of the following is NOT a policy-based reason for excluding relevant evidence?
   1. Settlement offers
   2. Subsequent remedial measures
   3. Character evidence in a criminal case
   4. Evidence of a witness’s bias

Introduction

Evidence law starts from a simple premise: relevant evidence is admissible unless a rule says otherwise. On the MBE, the trap is that many questions involve evidence that is clearly relevant, but still must be excluded because of unfair prejudice, unreliability, or a specific policy rule.

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.

Under FRE 401–402, relevant evidence is admissible unless any of the following apply:

• The United States Constitution, a statute, or another rule of evidence excludes it.
• Its probative value is substantially outweighed by a Rule 403 danger.
• A specific policy-based exclusion (such as subsequent remedial measures) applies.

Logical vs Legal Relevance

The MBE often tests the distinction between “logical” and “legal” (pragmatic) relevance.

Key Term: Logical Relevance
The requirement that evidence have some probative value; it must tend to make a material fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.

Logical relevance is a low bar. Even slight probative value is enough. For example, evidence that a driver had been drinking earlier in the evening tends to make careless driving more probable; it is logically relevant.

Key Term: Probative Value
The degree to which a piece of evidence tends to prove or disprove a fact of consequence in the case.

But logically relevant evidence may still be excluded as a matter of legal relevance.

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, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

Legal relevance is governed primarily by Rule 403.

Key Term: Rule 403
The rule allowing exclusion of relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by dangers such as unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

The “substantially outweighed” language sets a pro-admissibility standard: close calls should be resolved in favor of admitting the evidence.

Reliability and Exclusion of Relevant Evidence

Courts are concerned not only with whether evidence proves something, but whether it does so in a trustworthy way.

Key Term: Reliability
The trustworthiness or dependability of evidence, affecting whether it should be admitted even if relevant.

Reliability interacts with relevance in two main ways:

• Some rules directly exclude unreliable evidence (e.g., the hearsay rule, requirements for expert testimony under FRE 702).
• In other situations, reliability problems merely go to weight, not admissibility, unless they trigger a specific rule.

Common reliability-related doctrines include:

• Hearsay (FRE 801–807): Out-of-court statements offered for their truth are presumed unreliable and excluded unless an exclusion or exception applies.
• Authentication (FRE 901–902): Documents, recordings, and other tangible items must be shown to be what the proponent claims.
• Best Evidence Rule (FRE 1002–1004): To prove the contents of a writing, recording, or photograph, the original (or an acceptable duplicate) is usually required.
• Expert Testimony (FRE 702): Expert opinions must be based on sufficient facts, reliable principles, and a reliable application of those principles to the case.

If a reliability rule is violated, evidence is inadmissible even though it is logically relevant. For example, a hearsay statement that does not fit any exception must be excluded despite its strong probative value.

At the same time, not every reliability concern leads to exclusion. Weak eyewitness testimony, vague recollections, and biased witnesses usually remain admissible; their flaws are explored through cross-examination and go to weight, not admissibility.

Rule 403 Balancing Test

Rule 403 is the main tool for excluding relevant evidence on pragmatic grounds.

Key Term: Unfair Prejudice
An undue tendency of evidence to suggest a decision on an improper basis, typically an emotional one, such as anger, horror, or sympathy, rather than on the facts and law.

Under Rule 403, the judge may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by one or more dangers:

• Unfair prejudice
• Confusing the issues
• Misleading the jury
• Undue delay
• Wasting time
• Needless presentation of cumulative evidence

Important points for the MBE:

• The exclusion is discretionary (“may” exclude).
• “Substantially outweighed” is a demanding standard; minor prejudice is not enough.
• The judge can often reduce the danger with a limiting instruction instead of excluding the evidence.

Key Term: Limited Admissibility
The principle that evidence may be admitted for one permissible purpose or against one party, while being inadmissible for another purpose or against another party, often accompanied by a limiting instruction under Rule 105.

Unfair Prejudice

Evidence is unfairly prejudicial when it invites the jury to decide on an improper basis. Typical MBE examples:

• Graphic photos of a victim’s injuries in a case where the cause, but not the severity, of the injuries is in dispute.
• Prior bad acts offered not to show motive or intent, but solely to portray the defendant as a bad person.

Courts try to weigh:

• How essential is this specific piece of evidence to the proponent’s case?
• Is there a less prejudicial way to prove the same point?
• How likely is it that the jury will misuse the evidence?

Confusion, Misleading, and Waste of Time

Evidence may be excluded if it will send the jury down a distracting side path or require a “mini-trial” on collateral issues. Examples include:

• Highly technical evidence of marginal relevance that would require lengthy expert testimony.
• Detailed proof of minor issues when the main issues are already well established.

Cumulative evidence—more of the same—is especially vulnerable under Rule 403 when many witnesses will say exactly what prior witnesses have already said.

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 as a matter of policy (FRE 407) when offered to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a defect, or a need for a warning. The policy is to encourage manufacturers to improve product safety without fear that such improvements will be used as evidence of prior fault.

Policy-Based Exclusions

Some relevant, even reliable, evidence is excluded categorically to further broader policy goals. These rules operate in addition to, and sometimes independently of, Rule 403.

Key Term: Policy-Based Exclusion
A rule that bars certain categories of relevant evidence, not because the evidence lacks probative value or reliability, but to further an external policy such as encouraging settlements or repairs.

Key policy-based rules on the MBE include:

• Subsequent remedial measures (FRE 407)

  • Repairs or safety improvements made after an injury or harm are not admissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a defect, or a need for a warning.
  • They may be admissible for other purposes, such as proving ownership or control, or to impeach if a party claims no safer alternative was possible.

• Compromise offers and settlement negotiations (FRE 408)

  • Offers to compromise and statements made in settlement negotiations about a disputed claim are not admissible to prove liability, invalidity, or the amount of the claim.
  • They can be used for other purposes, such as showing bias or obstruction.

• Offers to pay medical and similar expenses (FRE 409)

  • Offers to pay medical, hospital, or similar expenses are not admissible to prove liability.
  • Unlike Rule 408, accompanying admissions of fault are not automatically protected unless another rule applies.

• Liability insurance (FRE 411)

  • Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible to prove negligence or wrongful conduct.
  • Insurance may, however, be admitted to show bias (e.g., a witness employed by the insurer), ownership, or control.

• Withdrawn guilty pleas and plea negotiations (FRE 410)

  • Withdrawn guilty pleas, nolo contendere pleas, and statements made in plea discussions with prosecutors are generally inadmissible against the defendant.

These exclusions apply even when the evidence is highly probative and reliable, because the rules prioritize encouraging socially valuable behavior (remedial measures, settlements, offers to help) and protecting plea bargaining.

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 under FRE 409 to encourage parties to assist with medical costs without the offer being treated as an admission of liability.

Worked Example 1.3

In a negligence action, the plaintiff wants to introduce evidence that the defendant carries a large liability insurance policy to show the defendant is careless because “he expects to be sued.” The defendant objects. How should the court rule?

Answer:
The court should exclude the evidence. FRE 411 bars evidence of liability insurance when offered to prove negligence or wrongful conduct. The evidence is relevant but excluded to avoid unfairly influencing the jury’s perception of the defendant’s ability to pay.

Conditional Relevance and Predicate

Some evidence is relevant only if another fact is true. FRE 104(b) addresses this situation.

Key Term: Conditional Relevance
Evidence whose relevance depends on whether another fact exists; the court admits the evidence if there is sufficient proof from which a reasonable jury could find the condition fulfilled.

Examples:

• A threatening letter is relevant to show motive only if the letter is actually authored by the defendant.
• A statement is relevant as a party admission only if the speaker is in fact the party’s agent.

The judge acts as a gatekeeper: if there is enough evidence for a reasonable jury to find the condition satisfied, the evidence comes in and the jury decides what weight to give it.

Limited Admissibility and Instructions

Often the safest way to deal with potential prejudice is not to exclude the evidence entirely, but to limit how the jury can use it.

Under Rule 105, if evidence is admissible for one purpose but not another (or against one party but not another), the court must, upon request, give a limiting instruction.

Examples:

• A prior conviction may be admitted to impeach a witness’s credibility but not as substantive evidence of guilt.
• Evidence of insurance may be admitted to show bias of an insurance adjuster-witness, but not to prove negligence.

On the MBE, if you see evidence that is clearly relevant for some purposes but problematic for others, think:

• Can the problem be cured by a limiting instruction rather than exclusion?
• Does a specific policy rule (like FRE 407–411) override the general use of limiting instructions?

Worked Example 1.4

In a fraud trial, the prosecution offers the defendant’s prior conviction for perjury from five years ago. The prosecution says it is offered only to impeach the defendant if he testifies. The defense argues the jury will misuse it as substantive proof of guilt. What should the court do?

Answer:
The court should generally admit the conviction for impeachment (subject to the specific rules on prior convictions) and give a limiting instruction telling the jury it may consider the conviction only in evaluating credibility, not as proof that the defendant committed the charged fraud.

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:

• Confirm that the evidence is relevant under FRE 401.
• Ask whether any specific rule (hearsay, privilege, policy exclusions) bars it.
• If not, apply Rule 403: is its probative value substantially outweighed by a listed danger?
  On MBE questions, the correct answer often hinges on the “substantially outweighed” standard or on identifying that a policy rule (like FRE 407 or 408) applies.

Revision Tip

When answering MBE Evidence questions, move in this order:

1. Is the evidence relevant (logical relevance)?
2. Does any rule of exclusion based on reliability apply (hearsay, authentication, best evidence, expert reliability)?
3. Does a policy-based exclusion apply (subsequent remedial measures, offers to compromise, offers to pay medical expenses, liability insurance, withdrawn pleas)?
4. If still admissible, consider Rule 403 and whether a limiting instruction could solve any concern.
   Practising this sequence will help you avoid stopping at “relevant,” which is rarely the end of the analysis on the MBE.

Key Point Checklist

This article has covered the following key knowledge points:

• Relevant evidence is evidence that makes a fact of consequence more or less probable (FRE 401).
• Logical relevance is a low bar; even slightly probative evidence qualifies.
• Legal relevance (Rule 403) allows exclusion of relevant evidence only when its probative value is substantially outweighed by dangers such as unfair prejudice, confusion, misleading the jury, undue delay, or cumulative proof.
• Reliability concerns (hearsay, authentication, best evidence, expert reliability) can independently render relevant evidence inadmissible.
• Unfair prejudice means an undue tendency to prompt a decision on an improper emotional or other basis.
• Conditional relevance requires sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find the conditioning fact exists; otherwise the evidence is excluded.
• Limited admissibility allows evidence to be used for some purposes (or against some parties) but not others, often with a limiting instruction under Rule 105.
• Policy exclusions (subsequent remedial measures, settlement offers, offers to pay medical expenses, liability insurance, certain pleas) keep some relevant evidence out to further public policies such as encouraging repairs and settlements.
• Subsequent remedial measures are inadmissible to prove negligence or defect but may be used for other purposes like ownership, control, or impeachment.
• Offers to compromise and plea negotiations are generally inadmissible to prove liability or guilt.
• Offers to pay medical expenses are inadmissible to prove liability, even if they strongly suggest fault.
• Evidence of liability insurance cannot be used to prove negligence but can show bias, ownership, or control.
• On MBE problems, always run through: relevance → specific exclusionary rules (reliability, policy) → Rule 403 → limiting instruction.

Key Terms and Concepts

• Relevance
• Logical Relevance
• Legal Relevance
• Probative Value
• Reliability
• Rule 403
• Unfair Prejudice
• Limited Admissibility
• Conditional Relevance
• Policy-Based Exclusion