Also known as: sufficient to support the finding · sufficiency to support a finding · sufficiency of evidence · substantial evidence test
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Evidence that permits a reasonable trier of fact to conclude that a required preliminary fact exists. The standard is met when the proponent supplies testimony or other proof from which a jury could rationally find the fact, without the judge weighing credibility or deciding the fact itself.
Stella Shapiro testifies that she saw workers roll barrels from a truck into a marsh while standing on a ridge several hundred yards away at dusk. The defendant moves to strike for lack of personal knowledge because of the distance and poor lighting. The court denies the motion because Stella's description of what she perceived supplies evidence from which a reasonable juror could find she had personal knowledge of the dumping.
The prosecution offers a recorded call in which a junior analyst jokes about selling garbage bonds. Defense counsel objects that nothing yet ties the call to the specific bond program charged in the indictment. The judge admits the recording on the condition that the prosecutor later introduce testimony about timing and deal codes that would allow a reasonable juror to find the call concerned the charged program.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A hotel security employee testifies that he copied lobby camera footage onto his personal USB drive minutes after a guest's fall and did not edit it. The resort objects that the video is not authenticated. The court overrules the objection because the employee's testimony about the copying process and the matching timestamps supply evidence from which a reasonable juror could find the USB video is what the proponent claims.
The government offers evidence that the defendant previously sold stolen televisions to prove he knew the sets in the current case were stolen. The defendant objects that nothing shows the prior televisions were stolen. The court admits the evidence because the government has introduced proof from which a reasonable juror could find the prior sets were stolen, satisfying the conditional-relevance threshold.
A defendant charged with escape raises a duress defense and offers testimony about threats but no evidence of any effort to surrender once the threat ended. The government moves for judgment on the defense. The court grants the motion because the defendant has not introduced evidence sufficient to support a finding of a bona fide effort to return to custody after the claimed duress lost its force.
An employer challenges an NLRB finding that it committed an unfair labor practice, arguing the record lacks evidence of anti-union animus. The court of appeals affirms because the record contains testimony and documents from which a reasonable factfinder could conclude the employer acted out of hostility to union activity, meeting the substantial-evidence standard.
The proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is. This is a low threshold. Once the showing is made, questions about alteration or accuracy go to weight rather than admissibility.
The court may admit the evidence on the condition that the proponent later introduces proof sufficient to support a finding that the preliminary fact exists. The judge does not decide the fact by a preponderance. The judge only checks whether a reasonable juror could find it.
A witness may testify only if evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. The witness's own testimony describing what was perceived can satisfy the standard. Doubts about accuracy or distance go to weight for the jury.
The court may strike the conditionally admitted evidence and give a limiting or curative instruction if necessary. The rule expressly contemplates this procedure to manage evidence whose relevance depends on a fact the jury must ultimately decide.
…danger of bringing about substantive evils Congress may prevent. Subsequent cases have varied in approach; some focused on sufficiency of evidence, others on whether a legislature may deem certain classes of speech inherently dangerous. The Holmes-Brandeis view emphasized that when speech itself is the evidence of violation, it is…