Also known as: unfairly prejudicial · unfairly prejudice · FRE 403 prejudice · probative value vs prejudice
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A risk that relevant evidence will prompt a factfinder to decide a case on an improper basis such as an emotional response rather than the evidence's logical force. The danger arises when evidence invites jury misuse or arouses hostility or sympathy that distorts the evaluative process. Courts weigh this risk against the evidence's probative value under a substantial-outweighing standard.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Ulrike Ulrich offers photographs of the victim's severe injuries in her civil battery suit against Ugo Ucelli. The images show graphic wounds that could inflame the jury's sympathy for Ulrike and hostility toward Ugo. The court excludes the photographs because the risk that jurors will decide on an emotional basis substantially outweighs their modest additional probative value on the extent of harm.
Umar Underwood faces a felon-in-possession charge after a handgun is found in his lab. The government seeks to introduce the full record of his earlier national-security conviction for unauthorized satellite-technology exports. The court bars the details because the name and nature of the prior offense create a substantial danger that the jury will convict on propensity grounds rather than on the current possession element.
Usha Upton is charged as a felon in possession of a firearm. She offers to stipulate to her prior felony status so the jury learns only that she is a prohibited person. The government insists on introducing the full record of her assault conviction. The court excludes the details because the name and nature of the prior offense carry a risk of unfair prejudice that substantially outweighs any remaining probative value once the stipulation removes the need for those facts.
Urban Utley is tried for conspiracy to distribute narcotics. The government offers a hearsay statement by an alleged co-conspirator that implicates Urban. Urban objects that the statement is unreliable and will cause the jury to convict on the basis of an untested accusation. The court admits the statement after finding its probative value on the existence of the conspiracy is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
Umar Usmani is charged with illegal reentry after deportation. The indictment alleges he was previously removed following an aggravated felony conviction. Umar objects that revealing the nature of the prior offense will prejudice the jury on the current charge. The court allows the allegation because the statutory element requires proof of the aggravated nature and the risk of unfair prejudice does not substantially outweigh the evidence's probative value on that element.
Upland Industries' employee Ugo Ucelli is prosecuted for deliberate homicide. He seeks to introduce evidence of his extreme intoxication to negate the mental state required for the offense. The state objects that the evidence invites the jury to acquit on sympathy rather than on the facts. The court excludes the intoxication evidence because its probative value on mens rea is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of the issues.
Unfair prejudice refers to the danger that evidence will prompt the jury to decide on an improper basis, commonly an emotional one, rather than on the evidence's logical force. It is distinct from the ordinary harm that any damaging evidence causes to an opponent's case. Courts exclude evidence only when this danger substantially outweighs the evidence's probative value.
The name and nature of a prior conviction generally carry a risk of unfair prejudice that exceeds probative value when the defendant's status as a felon is the only fact at issue. A defendant's offer to stipulate to that status removes the need for details and heightens the danger that the jury will misuse the evidence as propensity proof.
…require additional safeguards. The admission of uncorroborated hearsay statements in conspiracy cases poses a serious risk of unfair prejudice to the defendant. Such statements are often made by witnesses who have a strong motive to lie or exaggerate in order to obtain a better deal from the Government. Without the requirement of…
…“substantially outweighs [any] prejudicial effect,” Fed. Rule Evid. 703, or “the probative
…403 provides: " Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value
…that evidence of the . . . nature of the prior offense," here, that it was "aggravated" or serious, "carries a risk of unfair prejudice
…have held that the admission in a federal prosecution of details of prior crimes to which the defendant had admitted guilt was unfairly prejudicial
When a defendant offers to stipulate to felon status, the government's refusal to accept the stipulation and introduction of the full prior-conviction record may result in unfair prejudice that substantially outweighs probative value. The court must weigh whether the added details are necessary or whether they merely inflame the jury.
Yes. A hearsay statement admissible against one defendant but not another can create unfair prejudice if the jury is likely to misuse it against the non-offering party despite a limiting instruction. The court may exclude the statement entirely when the risk of misuse substantially outweighs its probative value.