When can Relevant Evidence be Excluded?

When can Relevant Evidence be Excluded?

• A. It can be excluded when it is unfairly prejudicial, confuses the issues, or wastes time.
• B. It can be excluded when it is highly probative.
• C. It can be excluded only if it is hearsay.
• D. It can be excluded if it is not material.

Answer: (A)

Relevant evidence can be kept out if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the risks it creates: unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or wasting time. This is the balancing step judges use to make sure information that is genuinely useful for deciding the case isn’t allowed to derail the trial. Unfair prejudice means the evidence could improperly sway the jury by appealing to emotion or bias rather than to reason. Confusing the issues happens when the evidence distracts from the actual questions to be decided or leads the jury to focus on something irrelevant. Wasting time covers situations where the evidence would consume a lot of time for little or no real probative help. High probative value actually argues for admitting the evidence, not excluding it, because it meaningfully helps establish a fact. Hearsay is a separate rule about admissibility and reliability, not the sole gatekeeper for exclusion. If something is not material, it isn’t relevant to the case in the first place, so it wouldn’t be admitted for lack of relevance rather than because of a Rule 403 balancing.

Relevant evidence can be kept out if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the risks it creates: unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or wasting time. This is the balancing step judges use to make sure information that is genuinely useful for deciding the case isn’t allowed to derail the trial. Unfair prejudice means the evidence could improperly sway the jury by appealing to emotion or bias rather than to reason. Confusing the issues happens when the evidence distracts from the actual questions to be decided or leads the jury to focus on something irrelevant. Wasting time covers situations where the evidence would consume a lot of time for little or no real probative help.

High probative value actually argues for admitting the evidence, not excluding it, because it meaningfully helps establish a fact. Hearsay is a separate rule about admissibility and reliability, not the sole gatekeeper for exclusion. If something is not material, it isn’t relevant to the case in the first place, so it wouldn’t be admitted for lack of relevance rather than because of a Rule 403 balancing.