MBE Rules · Evidence
FRE 403 — probative value vs. prejudice
FRE 403
The rule
A court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is SUBSTANTIALLY outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice, confusion, misleading the jury, undue delay, waste of time, or needless cumulative evidence. Strong presumption of admissibility — close call goes to admit.
In plain English
Courts can keep evidence out of a trial if it does more harm than good, like confusing the jury or wasting time.
Worked example
In a theft trial, the prosecutor wants to show the defendant's past thefts. The judge excludes it, thinking it might unfairly sway the jury against the defendant, rather than focusing on this case.
Memory hook
Probative vs. Prejudice: Balance the scales. Evidence must enlighten, not inflame — admit unless unfair weight tips the balance.
The trap
Students think: Any prejudice leads to exclusion. Wrong, because prejudice must substantially outweigh probative value. The actual test is a strong presumption of admissibility.
How examiners test it
The MBE loves: inflammatory evidence in a criminal case. Question: exclude? Trap: assuming all prejudicial evidence is out — remember, it must substantially outweigh probative value.
Drill this rule until it can't fail you.
Vrenberg generates unlimited questions on this exact rule, tracks your mastery of it, and brings it back until it sticks.