FreeQuick bite 01.01.06 · Library 01 · Evidence Fundamentals & Hearsay

Section 352 and Rule 403

Relevant, and still out

Evid. Code § 352 · FRE 403

Relevance gets evidence to the door. It does not get it through. What keeps it out is a margin, and the margin is deliberately lopsided.

LEVEL SUBSTANTIALLY still admitted PROBATIVE VALUE THE NAMED DANGER Tipped is not enough. The danger has to clear the mark, and the mark is not the middle.

Scroll the diagram sideways →

Plate 01.01.06 The scale is rigged toward admission. Both rules require the danger to substantially outweigh probative value, so a tie is admitted and so is a near miss. That is why the fight is about how little the evidence proves, not how ugly it is.
§ The two texts

Federal · Rule 403

“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.”

California · Section 352

“The court in its discretion may exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury.”

In the courtroom
FederalFRE 401, 402, 403The list of dangers is closed. Cumulative evidence is named expressly.
California§§ 210, 350, 351, 352351 is the admissibility default; 352 is the exception to it. Cumulative evidence arrives through “undue consumption of time.”
Preserve itSay the number. A general objection preserves nothing.
Application

The mistake is arguing that the evidence hurts. All good evidence hurts; that is what makes it worth offering. The danger these rules address is different—that the jury will do something with the evidence other than reason from it, or that the trial will be consumed by a side issue.

So the useful form of the objection is never “this is prejudicial.” It is: here is the improper use the jury will make of it, and here is how little the proper use is worth. Attack the numerator before the denominator—evidence that proves almost nothing is excluded on a modest showing of danger. Defending it works in reverse: you rarely win by calling the danger imaginary, you win by shrinking it with a limiting instruction, a redaction, or a stipulation.

How it sounds

Making it“Three-fifty-two, Your Honor. The probative value is minimal—the fact it goes to isn’t disputed—and the substantial danger is that the jury punishes my client for conduct that isn’t at issue.”

Defending it“It goes to [the disputed element], which they have put squarely in issue. If the Court has any concern, we’ll take a limiting instruction and redact lines four through nine.”

Three traps
  • “Prejudicial” without “unfair.”Every effective exhibit is prejudicial to someone. Name the improper basis or the objection is empty.
  • Saving it for trial.Discretion is nearly unreviewable, and a judge who has heard the evidence will not unhear it. Argue it in limine.
  • Thinking you conceded relevance.You did not. Both rules assume it.
Where to go deeper
CourseEvidence 101

Step five, with the full weighing analysis.

Quick bite 01.05.01Party admissions

Same result, different route, in the two systems.

FreeThe Evidence Cheat Sheet

All five steps, side by side.

This is one of two hundred and fifty-seven. The sheet prints on a single page, front and back, and fits a trial binder.

Download the sheet (PDF)

You just read one. The membership opens the other two hundred and fifty-six.

All four courses, sixteen hours of MCLE, the Trial War Room, and every video as it goes up. Thirty-day money-back guarantee.

See the membership
Download the sheet (PDF)