Also known as: FRE 402 · Fed. R. Evid. 402 · Rule 402 · FRE402 · Rule of Evidence 402
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A rule of evidence providing that relevant evidence is admissible unless excluded by the Constitution, a federal statute, these rules, or other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court. Irrelevant evidence is not admissible.
Green Shipping received Howard's pretrial disclosures listing dashcam clips more than thirty days before trial but filed no objections within fourteen days. At the final pretrial conference Green Shipping sought to challenge the clips on relevance grounds. The court permitted the objection because challenges under Rule 402 remain available even after the deadline.
Stratus offered expert testimony linking a chemical process to the patent claim. The court applied a relevance screen to determine whether the testimony would assist the jury on a fact of consequence. After finding the testimony sufficiently tied to the disputed issues, the court admitted the evidence.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
The prosecution sought to show that a defense witness belonged to the same gang as the defendant. The court admitted the evidence after determining that the shared affiliation made the witness's testimony less probable on a fact of consequence. The jury could consider the bias in weighing credibility.
Old Chief offered to stipulate to his prior felony conviction. The government nevertheless sought to introduce the name and nature of the offense. The court excluded the details after concluding they added nothing to any fact of consequence beyond the bare existence of the conviction.
The government offered evidence that the defendant had sold other stolen appliances at a suspiciously low price. The court admitted the evidence after finding it made the charged sale of stolen televisions more probable. The jury could consider the pattern in deciding whether the televisions were stolen.
A statute criminalized the commercial creation and sale of certain depictions of animal cruelty. The defendant argued the prohibition lacked any tendency to advance a legitimate government interest tied to the charged conduct. The court examined whether the banned material bore a sufficient connection to a fact of consequence under the rule.
Evidence must first satisfy Rule 402 by being relevant to a fact of consequence. Only after clearing that threshold does the court consider other exclusionary rules such as Rule 403 or privileges.
Yes. Objections based on Rule 402 or 403 are expressly excepted from the waiver that applies to other admissibility challenges not raised within fourteen days of pretrial disclosures.
Rule 402 addresses relevance while Rule 901 addresses whether an item is what the proponent claims. Both must be satisfied. An item may be relevant yet still excluded for lack of authentication.
Yes. If the demonstrative bears no connection to any fact of consequence and is offered only as atmospheric advocacy, it fails the relevance test and must be excluded.
…Court concludes that reliability and relevancy are the touchstones of the admissibility of expert testimony. Ante , at 590-592. Federal Rule of Evidence 402 provides, as the Court points out, that “[e]vidence which is not relevant is not admissible.” But there is no similar reference in the Rule to “reliability.” The Court constructs its…