Probative value, and countervailing adverse effects, of evidence: Difference between revisions
(Created page with "In law, the '''rules of evidence''' determine what evidence is admissible. For example, Federal Rule of Evidence 403 states, "The court may exclude relevant evidence if its pr...") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
In law, the '''rules of evidence''' determine what evidence is admissible. | In law, the '''rules of evidence''' determine what evidence is admissible. | ||
==Probative value of evidence, as balanced against other concerns== | |||
Federal Rule of Evidence 403 states, "The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence."<ref>https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_403</ref> | |||
This can become an issue during some [[child pornography]] cases.<ref>https://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/applying-rule-403-in-child-pornography-cases/</ref> | This can become an issue during some [[child pornography]] cases.<ref>https://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/applying-rule-403-in-child-pornography-cases/</ref> | ||
Some defendants seek to stipulate to certain facts, in order to avoid the need for evidence of those facts to be presented to the jury. This is sometimes not allowed if it would rob the evidence of its fair and legitimate weight, or upset jurors' expectations, leading them to wonder what they are being kept from knowing.<ref>http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/19/19-40009.0.pdf</ref> | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||
Revision as of 18:19, 28 June 2020
In law, the rules of evidence determine what evidence is admissible.
Probative value of evidence, as balanced against other concerns
Federal Rule of Evidence 403 states, "The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence."[1]
This can become an issue during some child pornography cases.[2]
Some defendants seek to stipulate to certain facts, in order to avoid the need for evidence of those facts to be presented to the jury. This is sometimes not allowed if it would rob the evidence of its fair and legitimate weight, or upset jurors' expectations, leading them to wonder what they are being kept from knowing.[3]
