Relevant vs. Unfair Prejudice: Federal Rules 401 and 403

• Author: Christy Albano
• Pages: 6-9

6 FAMILY ADVOCATE www.shopaba.org

Generally, evidence must be relevant to be

admissible. ereafter, relevant evidence may be

denied admission based upon unfair prejudice,

that it is misleading, causes confusion or undue

delay, wastes time, or is needlessly cumulative.

Rule 401 of the Federal Rules of Evidence states:

Evidence is relevant if:

(a) It has a tendency to make a fact more or less

probable than it would be without the evidence; and

(b) e fact is of consequence in determining the

action.

Federal Rule 403 is a limitation on Federal Rule 401 and

denes when relevant evidence may be excluded:

e court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative

value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or

more of the following:

(a) unfair prejudice,

(b) confusing the issues,

(c) misleading the jury,

(d) undue delay,

(e) wasting time, or

(f) needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.

Relevant vs.

Unfair Prejudice

Federal Rules 401 and 403

BY CHRISTY ALBANO

We examine here what constitutes relevant evidence and

how courts across the country weigh the probative vs.

prejudicial value of evidence.

Admissibility

e General Rule of Admissibility is set forth in Tilson v.

Tilson, 307 Neb. 275 (2020). “A trial court has the discretion

to determine the relevancy and admissibility of evidence, and

such determinations will not be disturbed on appeal unless

they constitute an abuse of that discretion.”

Relevance

When determining whether evidence is relevant, the courts

look to the specic facts and consider whether the evidence

oered provides probative value to the legal issues in the case.

If the evidence has a tendency to make a material fact more

or less likely, then it has probative value. All that must be

established, however slight, is a rational and probative

connection between the evidence oered and specic facts in

the case.

In Harrison v. Harrison, 58 Va. App. 90 (2011), the

husband argued the court should nd in personam jurisdic-

tion based on a proposed theory of “constructive matrimo-

Published in Family Advocate, Volume 44, Number 4, Spring 2022. © 2022 by the American Bar Association. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. This information or any portion thereof

may not be copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association.