Rule 403 requires a judge to balance what two considerations?

Rule 403 requires a judge to balance what two considerations?

• A. The mere relevance of the evidence.
• B. The weight of the eyewitness's testimony.
• C. The probative value of the evidence against the risk of unfair prejudice, confusion, or delay.
• D. The prejudicial effect must be avoided at all costs.

Answer: (C)

Rule 403 is about weighing how useful the evidence is against the risk it could unfairly sway the jury. Probative value means how strongly the evidence tends to prove a material fact. The risks mentioned—unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or delay—are concerns that the evidence might sway decisions for reasons other than the facts, mislead the jury, or waste time. So the judge performs a balancing test: if the evidence is highly probative and the potential for unfair prejudice, confusion, or delay is limited, it should be admitted. If the prejudice or confusion would substantially outweigh its usefulness in proving a fact, it should be excluded. Minor prejudicial impact is often permissible if the probative value is strong. Other options miss this balance. Merely noting relevance ignores the prejudice/confusion/delay risk. Focusing on the weight of eyewitness testimony alone doesn’t capture the broader balancing required. Saying the prejudicial effect must be avoided at all costs ignores that some prejudice is permissible if the evidence’s probative value is high enough.

Rule 403 is about weighing how useful the evidence is against the risk it could unfairly sway the jury. Probative value means how strongly the evidence tends to prove a material fact. The risks mentioned—unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or delay—are concerns that the evidence might sway decisions for reasons other than the facts, mislead the jury, or waste time.

So the judge performs a balancing test: if the evidence is highly probative and the potential for unfair prejudice, confusion, or delay is limited, it should be admitted. If the prejudice or confusion would substantially outweigh its usefulness in proving a fact, it should be excluded. Minor prejudicial impact is often permissible if the probative value is strong.

Other options miss this balance. Merely noting relevance ignores the prejudice/confusion/delay risk. Focusing on the weight of eyewitness testimony alone doesn’t capture the broader balancing required. Saying the prejudicial effect must be avoided at all costs ignores that some prejudice is permissible if the evidence’s probative value is high enough.