Also known as: relevancy conditioned on facts · conditional relevancy · conditional relevance
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A procedural rule that permits a court to admit evidence whose relevance depends on the existence of another fact. The court admits the evidence if the proponent supplies or promises evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to find that the connecting fact is true. The jury then decides whether the connecting fact exists and what weight to give the evidence.
Raymond Ramos faces embezzlement charges for diverting restricted charitable funds. The prosecution offers evidence of similar payments Ramos arranged two years earlier at another nonprofit. The court admits the evidence after finding sufficient proof from which the jury could reasonably conclude Ramos committed the prior acts. The jury will decide whether those acts occurred and whether they show motive or absence of mistake.
Regina Robinson is tried for conspiracy to distribute drugs. The government offers a co-conspirator's out-of-court statement implicating her. The court admits the statement after determining there is enough evidence for the jury to find Robinson joined the conspiracy. The jury will decide whether the conspiracy existed and whether the statement is admissible against her.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
The judge asks only whether the proponent has introduced or promised evidence sufficient for a reasonable juror to find the connecting fact. The judge does not decide the fact conclusively or require proof by a preponderance.
The court may strike the evidence or instruct the jury to disregard it. Conditional admission therefore protects the record while allowing orderly presentation of proof.
Under Rule 104(a) the judge decides the preliminary fact by a preponderance. Under conditional relevance the judge screens only for sufficient evidence to support a jury finding and leaves the ultimate decision to the jury.
Yes. Once the judge finds sufficient evidence to support a finding, the evidence reaches the jury. The jury then determines whether the connecting fact exists and what weight to assign the evidence.
…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.…