Exclusion of Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion or Waste of Time.

Question 1

FRE 403: Exclusio n of Relevant Evidence on Grouns Prejudice, COnfusion or Waste of Time.

Answer 1

Although relevant, evidecne may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighted by the danger of unfair prejudiuce, confusion of the issue, misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of tiem or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

Question 2

FRE 403: Bases for Exclusion of Relevant Evidence for Prejudice

Waste of time:

Answer 2

1. Waste of time

                    a. Core objecrtion is tha tevidence is cumulatiive, and party is      engagign in overkill to prove same things again and again. 
   					
                    b. If the only objection to evidence is waste of time, there can never be reversible error on appeal. 
   					
                          i)- Not going to send it back to the judge for him to waste MORE time trying the case again.

Question 3

FRE 403: Bases for Exclusion of Relevant Evidence for Prejudice.

Confusion

Answer 3

2. Confusion
   a. Hypo

i)- Facts- Issue in case is wehether Defendant sped on August 1, 2002. Plaintif f offers evidence to show that D once sped on 1/12/99. Defendant say “I never speed.”

ii)- Analysis- If court lets in witness testimony that he sped before, will have let D put on W that says he didnt speed before and then the jury is so focused on whether he sped on a prior oaccation that they are confused and distracted.

Question 4

FRE 403: Bases for Exclusion of Relevant Evidence for Prejudice.

Undue Prejudice

Answer 4

Undue Prejuice:

a. Even though adverse is always prejudicial, the court looking for lookign for an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis.

     i)- Grumsome photographs might be an example of something that has an "undue tendency" to suggest decision on an improper basis. Depends on if there was ither evidence to prove thje fact sought to be proven. 
			 
			 
			 b. Ballou v Henri Studios, Inc (1981)
			 i) Facts:
			        1 Involved death in truck accident
							2 Plaintiff wants to prove that plaintiff not intoxicated at death (to avoid contributory negligence defense)
							3 Tried to offer evidence that was not intoxicated because at death nurse didn’t smell alcohol b/f accident
							ii) Analysis:
							         1 Dist Ct said intoxicatoin tests were: (1) not sufficient reliability (2) prejudicial.
											 2 Court of Appeals overrules District Court because the evidence was both highly relevant and highly prejudicial
											 3 Just because evidence is highly harmful doesn’t mean that it is inadmissible under FRE

Question 5

Rule 403 Corollary

Answer 5