Also known as: substantially outweigh · substantially outweighed · substantially outweighing · substantial outweighing
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A standard for excluding relevant evidence when the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence. The standard also governs disclosure of otherwise inadmissible facts or data underlying an expert opinion and admission of remote convictions.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Sylvia Santos retained an economist to calculate lost profits in her contract suit against Sentinel Security. The expert relied on internal company memos that would be inadmissible hearsay. The court permitted the expert to disclose the memos after finding that their value in explaining the opinion substantially outweighed any prejudicial effect.
The government offered evidence that Sasha Stone had previously used a false identity to open bank accounts. The court admitted the evidence on the issue of intent after determining that its probative value on that non-propensity issue was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
Stella Shapiro offered more than a dozen dashcam recordings of unrelated minor collisions to show a trucking company's pattern of unsafe operation. The court excluded the recordings because their limited probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of confusing the issues and wasting time.
Sebastian Santos offered to stipulate that he was a felon in his felon-in-possession prosecution. The government nevertheless sought to introduce the full record of his prior national-security conviction. The court excluded the details because the risk of unfair prejudice substantially outweighed the probative value once the stipulation removed any need for the name or nature of the offense.
Sophia Singh sought to impeach a witness with a twelve-year-old conviction for falsifying expense vouchers. The court excluded the conviction after finding that its probative value on credibility did not substantially outweigh its prejudicial effect given the passage of time and the short period of confinement.
Sydney Santos's DNA expert relied on a lab report containing statements from an unavailable analyst. The court allowed limited disclosure of the report to the jury after concluding that the probative value of the disclosure in helping the jury evaluate the opinion substantially outweighed any prejudicial effect.
The court must determine that the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence. Equal weight or only a slight tipping toward prejudice is not enough to exclude the evidence.
When facts or data underlying an expert opinion would otherwise be inadmissible, the proponent may disclose them to the jury only if their probative value in helping the jury evaluate the opinion substantially outweighs their prejudicial effect.
…admissible in evidence.” [^maj-2]: But disclosure of these facts or data to the jury is permitted if the value of disclosure “substantially outweighs [any] prejudicial effect,” Fed. Rule Evid. 703, or “the probative value . . . outweighs the risk of unfair prejudice.” People v. Pasch , 152 Ill. 2d 133, 223, 604 N. E. 2d 294, 333 (1992).…
…Federal (and Montana) Rule of Evidence 403 provides: " Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence."…
…was a firearm. The court found that the evidence was relevant to the issue of knowledge and that its probative value was not substantially outweighed
…prevailed, with official approval, for the first 165 years of this Nation's constitutional history. That governmental interest
…and Federal Rules of Evidence, moreover, permit trial judges to exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed
Yes. For convictions more than ten years old, evidence is admissible only if the proponent shows that the probative value, supported by specific facts and circumstances, substantially outweighs the prejudicial effect and that reasonable written notice was given.
The government's refusal to accept the stipulation and introduction of the full record may result in unfair prejudice that substantially outweighs the probative value, especially when the defendant's status as a felon is the only fact at issue.