Also known as: Rule 403 · FRE 403 · Fed. R. Evid. 403 · Federal Rules of Evidence 403 · 403 balancing · prejudice rule · Rule 403 exclusion
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A rule authorizing a court 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, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
In a federal civil rights suit, plaintiff Francesca Fiore testifies about events at a protest. The defense offers her prior felony conviction for firearm possession by a felon to attack her credibility. The court weighs the conviction's value for truthfulness against the risk that jurors will treat it as evidence of general bad character and decides whether to admit it.
Prosecutors introduce evidence that defendant Forrest Falconer previously handled stolen electronics in a separate transaction. The court determines whether the jury could reasonably find he committed that act and then balances its value on the issue of intent against the danger that jurors will infer a general criminal propensity.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
In a felon-in-possession prosecution, defendant Faith Fitzgerald offers to stipulate that she has a prior felony conviction. The government instead seeks to introduce the full record naming the assault conviction. The court assesses whether the added detail creates unfair prejudice that substantially exceeds any remaining probative value on the status element.
Plaintiff Faye Fuller offers expert testimony linking a pharmaceutical to birth defects. The defense moves to exclude the testimony. The court evaluates whether the probative force of the expert's methodology is substantially outweighed by the risk that the jury will be misled by unproven scientific claims.
The government offers proof that defendant Felipe Figueroa committed an earlier home invasion using the same distinctive mask. The court decides whether the probative value on identity is substantially outweighed by the danger that jurors will convict because they view the defendant as a habitual criminal.
In a prosecution for aggravated assault, the government seeks to introduce multiple close-up photographs of the victim's wounds. The defense objects. The court weighs the photographs' value in proving the extent of injury against the risk that the images will inflame the jury and produce a verdict based on emotion rather than evidence.
A felony conviction punishable by more than one year is admissible to impeach a civil plaintiff's credibility unless its probative value on truthfulness is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or other listed concerns under Rule 403.
No. The conviction is admitted unless the danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighs its probative value on credibility. The ordinary balancing test applies rather than automatic exclusion.
The refusal to accept a stipulation may create unfair prejudice that substantially outweighs probative value because the name and nature of the prior conviction carry a risk of propensity reasoning that exceeds its value when only status is at issue.
The evidence is admissible if there is sufficient proof for a jury to find the prior act occurred and the probative value on the non-propensity issue is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
…expert testimony is not per se inadmissible, the district court on remand would nevertheless have discretion to reject it under Rule 403 or 702. Daubert , --- U.S. at ----, 113 S.Ct. at 2798. Such a ruling would be reviewed under the deferential abuse of discretion standard. One other procedural matter detains us.…