Also known as: conditional relevance · conditional relevancy
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A category of evidence whose probative value turns on the existence of a separate factual predicate. The court screens only for whether a reasonable jury could find the predicate and may admit the evidence conditionally pending later proof.
The Anderson Estate offers an AeroTech supervisor's email stating the company is still flying on an overdue inspection. Defendants point to maintenance logs showing the email addressed a different aircraft. The judge admits the email after the estate proffers records that would allow a reasonable jury to find the referenced inspection concerned the crash jet.
The prosecution offers evidence that Steve previously arranged payments from a youth sports nonprofit to a company he controlled. Steve notes the board approved the payments and no wrongdoing was ever found. The court admits the evidence after determining a reasonable jury could find Steve committed the prior act and the probative value on intent is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Arthur offers an authenticated board-meeting slide that lists a special operations fund. The Foundation objects that the slide is irrelevant without proof Arthur's restricted gift was diverted into that account. The court admits the slide on the condition that Arthur later introduce evidence linking the gift to the fund.
The judge decides only whether the proponent has offered enough evidence for a reasonable jury to find the connecting fact. The judge does not weigh the evidence or decide the fact conclusively.
Supporting sources
Yes. The court may admit the evidence on the condition that the proponent later supplies the connecting proof. If the proof is not supplied, the court may strike the evidence or instruct the jury to disregard it.
Supporting sources
Under Rule 104(a) the judge decides the preliminary fact. Under conditional relevance the judge screens only for sufficient evidence to support a jury finding and leaves the ultimate decision to the jury.
Supporting sources
The court need not find by a preponderance that the defendant committed the prior act. It is enough that a reasonable jury could find the act occurred and that the probative value on a permitted issue is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.
Supporting sources
…We intimate no view on the proper standard of proof for questions falling under Federal Rule of Evidence 104(b) (conditional relevancy). We also decline to address the circumstances in which the burden of coming forward to show that the proffered evidence is inadmissible is appropriately placed on the nonoffering party.…