Also known as: relevance that depends on a fact · conditional relevancy · conditional relevance · FRE 104(b)
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A principle of evidence law under which the relevance of offered evidence turns on the existence of a preliminary fact. The court admits the evidence if the proponent introduces or will introduce proof sufficient for a reasonable jury to find that fact. The court may admit the evidence on the condition that the connecting proof is supplied later.
The Anderson Estate offers an email from an AeroTech supervisor noting an overdue inspection to prove knowing disregard of safety in a jet crash case. SkyLink Jets and AeroTech object that the email referred to a different aircraft. The judge admits the email subject to the estate later introducing logs and records showing the email concerned the crash jet.
The prosecution offers evidence of Steve's earlier consulting payments from a youth sports nonprofit to show motive and absence of mistake in the current embezzlement charges. Steve objects that the board approved the payments and no wrongdoing was found. The court admits the evidence after finding sufficient proof for a reasonable jury to conclude the prior acts occurred.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Arthur offers an authenticated board-meeting slide listing a special operations fund to prove his restricted gift was diverted. The Foundation objects for lack of connecting proof. The court admits the slide on the condition that Arthur later supplies evidence linking his donation to that account.
The proponent must introduce evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to find the connecting fact. The judge does not decide the fact conclusively but screens whether the threshold showing has been met.
Supporting sources
Yes. The court may admit the evidence on the condition that the proponent supplies the connecting proof later. If the proof is never supplied the court can strike the evidence or instruct the jury to disregard it.
Supporting sources
No. The judge asks only whether a reasonable juror could find the fact. The jury ultimately decides whether the connecting fact is true.
Supporting sources
The court need not find by a preponderance that the defendant committed the prior act. The evidence is admissible if there is sufficient proof for a reasonable jury to find the act occurred and the probative value on a non-propensity issue is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.
Supporting sources
…We intimate no view on the proper standard of proof for questions falling under Federal Rule of Evidence 104(b) (conditional relevancy). We also decline to address the circumstances in which the burden of coming forward to show that the proffered evidence is inadmissible is appropriately placed on the nonoffering party.…