Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) Rule 403: Unfair prejudice (and other dangers)

WELCOME to my “Federal Rules of Evidence” program for students interested in the evidentiary rules that govern trials in federal court. "Federal Rules of Evidence" is a series of 12 playlists (with many videos) designed to introduce viewers to the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE), as well as evidentiary concepts and arguments under the FRE. The 12 playlist topics are set out below in this description.
This playlist covers FRE Rules in Article IV (Relevance and 403). This video covers FRE Rule 403 - Unfair Prejudice (and other dangers).
This playlist (organized by FRE rule/concept) for Articles I & II features the following videos:
 Rule 401 - Test for Relevance
 Article IV. Relevance generally - rule of admissibility
 Article IV. Relevance generally - logic exercise for the proponent
 Article IV. Objection, irrelevant - Is the evidence relevant?
 Sample evidentiary arguments upon a relevance objection under FRE Rule 401
 Rule 403. Four steps to evidentiary arguments under 403
 Rule 403. Excluding relevant evidence for [unfair] prejudice
 Rule 403. Excluding relevant evidence for [other dangers]
 Article IV. Objection, unfair prejudice - Is the evidence unfairly prejudicial?
The channel features several videos within each of these 12 playlists:
 Intro to FRE Rules & Concepts *(start here)*
 Articles I & II - General & Judicial Notice
 Article IV - Relevance & 403
 Article IV - Policy rules
 Article IV - Character evidence
 Article V - Privileges
 Article IV - Witnesses
 Article IV - Impeachment
 Article VII - Opinion testimony
 Article VIII - Hearsay - definition/exemptions
 Article VIII - Hearsay - exceptions
 Articles IX & X - Authentication & Original doc
ABOUT ME:
Professor Wes Porter served as a trial attorney with the Department of Justice's Criminal Division, Fraud Section, in Washington D.C., the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Hawaii and the JAG Corps for the U.S. Navy stationed in the Trial Service Office Pacific. After lecturing and teaching as an adjunct professor for years, he moved to academia full-time teaching courses in Evidence, Criminal Law and Procedure, and skills courses like Trial Advocacy. Professor Porter earned tenure, became a full professor of law, and led a center devoted to evidence, litigation and trial skills training.
Professor Porter still teaches in law schools and trains lawyers new to the profession. To contact Professor Porter with questions or video topic requests, you may email him at [e-mail].
©Wes R. Porter 2020. All rights reserved.

[@elizameguschar3123]

Great video. I have a question. Can you explain the difference between unfairly prejudicial evidence and evidence that might confuse or mislead the jury?

[@professorporter]

These two dangers in Rule 403 can overlap but “unfairly prejudicial” describes evidence that would be get in the way of allowing the jury to fairly and neutrally evaluate evidence. For example, in a murder case with an identity defense, it may be unfair to present too many gory, heart-wrenching crime scene photos because the jury may become overwhelmed with needing to hold someone accountable.
Confusing or misleading evidence can be dense materials designed to make the jury feel daunted in getting through it. For example, in a fraud case, the defendant attempts to admit the entire legislative history of the Medicare program - 1,000s of pages.

[@johnwinters1518]

It's easy to say what's probative, but how does one quantify prejudice?

[@professorporter]

These are evidentiary arguments. The objecting party argues to the court how much the evidence will unfairly impact their case and client. The responding party (party offering the evidence) argues that scales of how any perceived unfairness in Rule 403 does NOT substantially outweigh the probative value. Judge decides within her discretion

[@JP-np8fj]

If a defendant were to bring up the chief investigator's history of tampering with evidence in cases, and corruption accusations that he was proven innocent in, would that be unfair prejudice?

[@professorporter]

It may constitute unfair prejudice. Yet, Rule 403 provides a balancing test within the discretion of the trial judge, wherein the judge weighs any unfair prejudice against the evidence’s probative value. The evidence should be excluded only when that danger of unfair prejudice “substantially outweighs” its probative value.

[@JP-np8fj]

@@professorporter Thanks for the reply! If the defense is trying to accuse the Investigator of being unreliable as a whole due to his past history of corruption then, would you consider it better for the prosecution's objection to be an objection on the basis of irrelevance or Prejudice? (For context, this is for an unofficial mock trial in my English class, I'm just trying to learn some more about how the legal system works)