How to Analyze Legal Relevance on an Evidence Essay (FRE 403)

📚 LAW SCHOOL & BAR EXAM PREP
Law school prep: studicata.com/law-school
Bar exam prep: studicata.com/bar-exam
Free courses: studicata.com/free-courses
❤️ COMMUNITY & REVIEWS
Community: studicata.com/groups/community
Testimonials: studicata.com/testimonials-an...
Submit a review: shoutout.studicata.com
📱 TECH
iOS app: studicata.com/ios
Android app: studicata.com/android
📣 ABOUT
Studicata provides a fresher, more relatable way to prep for law school finals and the bar exam. With top-rated video lectures, exam walkthrough videos, outlines, study guides, strategy guides, essay practice exams, multiple-choice assessments, performance tracking, and more-Studicata has you covered with everything you need to ace your finals and pass the bar exam with confidence.
Email: [e-mail]
Learn more: studicata.com
🎬 VIDEO INFO
How to Analyze Legal Relevance on an Evidence Essay (FRE 403)
LEGAL RELEVANCE (FRE 403)
Under Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the court may exclude logically relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: (1) unfair prejudice; (2) confusing the issues; (3) misleading the jury; (4) undue delay; (5) wasting time; or (6) needlessly presenting cumulative evidence. (FRE 403).
Learn more: studicata.com

[@razorbackpiperguy2898]

I'm watching this to brush up before my Evidence exam tomorrow.
I really wish this guy had been my professor. I'd be less worried right now.

[@HopeMarie2013]

My thoughts exactly. Glad I pay thousands for tuition just to let TH-cam teach me lol

[@rod827virgo]

Just passed GA bar exam! Your videos are super helpful

[@moniquecampos9991]

CONGRATS!! ON DOING IT BIG!

[@afshinsarbaz]

fantastic as always, thank you

[@hyojinlee]

Love your videos!

[@khachak2]

Thank you, very helpful as always! The way i understand it, if probative value and prejudicial effect are equal then probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, thus the evidence (e.g. prior conviction of felony without dishonesty to attack witness credibility) would be admissible?

[@anyany19]

Thanks for the video! Very helpful!
However, what about the video on character evidence you mention here?:)))

[@Djawesome914]

Do you have any videos on particularity of a search warrant or scope of a search warrant when dealing with computers or cell phones? Great videos these been help full!

[@saradavies1582]

God bless you so so much you make the course look so so cheap.... repetition for emphasis!!

[@studicata]

Thank you!

[@studicata]

🚨 SPECIAL OFFER: Want to crush law school finals, rack up scholarship $$$, pass the bar exam, and practice law like a BOSS? Take the LEAP. Get started today for free at: www.studicata.com/leap

[@mohdakramshairmohamed7914]

very lucid.

[@johnwinters1518]

This guy makes law professors look bad the way he hones in on what matters instead of adding countless hours of extraneous stuff.

[@vascra1521]

Are the jurors so smart. How about an expert here to give a conclusion about consequences, it's seems scientific . You can agree not all jurors are experts , .. correct ?

[@lia.is.on.]

Please see my reply to your earlier comment.

[@vascra1521]

We cannot judge on photos and silly emotions, scientific expertise conclusions is needed .

[@lia.is.on.]

What are you talking about? An expert witness is not needed here. Rule #1 of law school exams is DON'T ASSUME FACTS! He didn't say anything about science or experts. Also, whether the jurors are "smart" is not relevant here. You must be a 0L or a 1L. Focus on your basic punctuation and grammar. It needs a lot of work.