Also known as: Rule 403 · 403 balancing test · FRE 403 balancing · FRE 403 · evidence Rule 403
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A rule permitting a court to exclude relevant evidence when its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, or undue delay.
Raphael Rivera sued Riverstone Manufacturing after a workplace injury. The defense called nurse Madison to testify about safety protocols. To impeach Madison, Rivera offered her prior felony conviction for diverting prescription drugs. The court weighed the conviction's value for assessing truthfulness against the risk that jurors would view Madison as generally dishonest and excluded the evidence under the balancing test.
Rita Russell faced charges for distributing stolen electronics. The government offered evidence that Russell had previously sold similar items from the same supplier. The court found sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude Russell committed the prior acts and determined that the evidence's value on intent was not substantially outweighed by prejudice, so it admitted the acts after applying the balancing test.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Roger Ramirez was charged as a felon in possession of a firearm. He offered to stipulate to his prior assault conviction. The government insisted on introducing the full record. The court concluded that the name and nature of the assault created unfair prejudice that substantially outweighed its probative value on the status element and excluded the details under the balancing test.
Riley Rivera sued Royal Crest Hotels after suffering an allergic reaction at a banquet. Riley offered expert testimony linking the reaction to hotel food handling. The hotel moved to exclude the testimony. The court applied the balancing test and found the expert's methodology sufficiently reliable that its probative value was not substantially outweighed by confusion risks, so the testimony was admitted.
Ryan Roberts was prosecuted for assault. The government offered a prior consistent statement by the victim. Roberts objected that the statement was made after a motive to fabricate arose. The court weighed the statement's value for rebutting recent fabrication against the danger of bolstering and excluded it under the balancing test.
Rosalind Reed sued Rocky Mountain Mining for injuries from a cave-in. The company offered multiple prior incident reports that were largely repetitive. Reed objected. The court applied the balancing test, found the reports' marginal probative value substantially outweighed by the risk of undue delay and jury confusion, and excluded the cumulative documents.
Rule 609(a)(1)(A) requires that a qualifying felony conviction be admitted in civil cases or when the witness is not a criminal defendant, but only after the court conducts Rule 403 balancing. The conviction is excluded if its probative value on credibility is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice or other Rule 403 dangers.
The court must decide whether the government's refusal to accept the stipulation and introduction of the full conviction record creates unfair prejudice that substantially outweighs probative value. The name and nature of the prior conviction often carry prejudice exceeding its value when the defendant's status is the only disputed fact.
Yes. After finding sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude the defendant committed the prior act, the court must still determine under Rule 403 whether the probative value on a non-propensity issue is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.
The court examines whether the exhibit has any tendency to make a fact of consequence more or less probable. Purely atmospheric or generic visuals lacking connection to the actual events or testimony are excluded because their dramatic effect is not probative and risks misleading the jury.
…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.…