Also known as: FRE 403 · Rule 403 · Fed. R. Evid. 403 · Rule 403 FRE
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A rule permitting a court to exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury.
In a civil malpractice suit, Green Therapeutics seeks to impeach nurse Madison with her prior felony conviction for diverting prescription drugs. The conviction carries a potential sentence exceeding one year. The court weighs the conviction's value for testing Madison's truthfulness against the risk that jurors will view her as generally dishonest and concludes the evidence should be admitted.
Prosecutors introduce evidence that Finn Fletcher previously sold similar counterfeit goods to show his intent in the current fraud prosecution. The court finds sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude Fletcher committed the prior acts. It then balances the evidence's value on intent against the risk of unfair propensity inferences and admits the acts.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Felix Franco, charged as a felon in possession, offers to stipulate that he has a prior felony. The government insists on introducing the full record naming the offense. The court determines that the name and nature of the conviction create unfair prejudice exceeding its probative value on the status element and excludes the details.
Felicia Fuentes offers expert testimony linking a pharmaceutical to birth defects. The court evaluates whether the testimony's scientific foundation makes it sufficiently reliable. It then weighs the testimony's probative force against the danger that jurors will be misled by unproven methodology and excludes the evidence.
In a prosecution of Fairview Manufacturing executives, the government offers evidence of earlier false invoices. The court finds the evidence relevant to intent. It then determines that the risk of unfair prejudice from propensity reasoning substantially outweighs the probative value and excludes the evidence.
Prosecutors seek to introduce videos depicting animal fighting to prove the elements of the charged offense. The court recognizes the videos' relevance. It concludes that the danger of unfair prejudice from the graphic content substantially outweighs the probative value and excludes the videos.
Rule 403 requires exclusion when the probative value of the conviction for testing truthfulness is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. In civil cases and when the witness is not the criminal defendant, the conviction is admitted unless this balancing test is met. When the witness is the defendant, a stricter test applies.
Supporting sources
Rule 403 applies to uncharged misconduct evidence. The court must determine whether the probative value on a non-propensity issue such as intent or motive is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The trial court need not make a preliminary finding by a preponderance that the defendant committed the prior act.
Supporting sources
When the defendant offers to stipulate to a prior conviction element, the government's insistence on introducing the full record may create unfair prejudice that substantially outweighs probative value. The name and nature of the conviction generally carry a risk of prejudice exceeding its value when only the defendant's status is at issue.
Supporting sources
…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.…