Also known as: FRE 403 · Federal Rule of Evidence 403 · Rule 403 · 403 balancing · prejudice rule
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A rule authorizing a court to exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
Frederick Ferguson testifies as plaintiff in his excessive-force suit against the city. The defense offers his prior felony conviction for firearm possession by a felon to attack his credibility. The court weighs the conviction's value for truthfulness against the risk the jury will treat it as propensity evidence and admits the conviction after finding the probative value is not substantially outweighed.
Felicia Fuentes faces trial for receiving stolen goods. The government offers evidence that she previously sold similar stolen appliances to the same fence. The court determines a jury could reasonably find she committed the prior act and admits the evidence after concluding its value on intent is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Francois Fortier is charged as a felon in possession of a firearm. He offers to stipulate to his prior felony status, but the government seeks to introduce the full judgment naming the prior offense. The court excludes the details after finding the name and nature of the conviction create unfair prejudice that substantially outweighs any remaining probative value.
Faith Fitzgerald testifies that her supervisor harassed her at work. The defense offers her earlier consistent statement made after the alleged motive to fabricate arose. The court excludes the statement after determining its limited probative value on credibility is substantially outweighed by the danger of misleading the jury.
Farah Fox offers expert testimony linking a medication to birth defects. The court evaluates the scientific methodology and excludes the testimony after concluding its probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of misleading the jury on causation.
Flora Ford sues for breach of contract and offers multiple witnesses to repeat the same conversation about delivery dates. The court excludes the third and fourth witnesses after finding their testimony adds little probative value that is substantially outweighed by the danger of wasting time and confusing the jury.
The conviction must be admitted unless its probative value on credibility is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or other listed concerns. The court applies the ordinary balancing test rather than the stricter standard used for criminal defendants.
Supporting sources
A defendant's offer to stipulate may render the full record of the prior conviction unfairly prejudicial when the only fact at issue is the defendant's status as a felon. The court may exclude the name and nature of the conviction if the probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice.
Supporting sources
The evidence is admissible if sufficient evidence exists for a jury to find the defendant committed the prior act and the probative value on a non-propensity issue is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
Supporting sources
…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.…