Law discussion 2 responses

1. Federal rule 403 allows a judge to exclude relevant evidence.  The judge can only exclude relevant evidence if it is probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time or needlessly presenting cumulative (Bixon, 2019). If you are trialling a murder scene and you want to show photographs of the scene, that is relevant evidence. You are allowed to show that because it shows the extent of the injuries,  and blood splatter that could be relevant with the murder weapon. Is this process fair from a justice perspective, I feel each person might feel differently. The prosecutor and defense attorney both have a goal to defend their clients the best of their ability. If the evidence is favored in their ruling, they will fight to want that evidence not excluded in the trial. 

2. Federal rule 403 allows a judge to exclude relevant evidence because of "unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or waste of time. “Unfair prejudice” within its context means an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, commonly, though not necessarily, an emotional one". When it comes to the justice system, some things can be a bit unfair. I believe that in some cases this rule can be fair. Not all evidence is good evidence. If it is confusing and misleading, most likely there is another issue. There are good people in this world, but there are a lot of bad people as well. 

3. Rule 403 is when the judge excludes any evidence that they feel it is not necessary because it is a waste of time or that it shows unfair prejudice the lawyer may have. It also can mislead the jury as well as confuse the issues at hand which makes the jury’s verdict harder to obtain. This is fair from a justice perspective because it makes sure there are no biases in the courtroom as it should be and it also brings order to the courtroom which makes everything go smoother. 

4. Federal Rule 403 gives judges the ability to exclude relevant evidence. If its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence (Hails, 2018). Is excluding relevant evidence fair from a justice perspective? In my opinion, it would depend on the evidence. If specific evidence were to be rejected, I am sure there was the right reason. For example, it can waste time. Those who are present in court want to show every evidence, which is why Federal Rule 403 has its purpose. There are times in cases where even small evidence can change the outcome of the trial. 

5. Relevant evidence is evidence that is able to change the probability of a fact being more or less likely to be true. The fact it changes the probability of also must be important in regards to the case itself. Federal Rule 403 allows the exclusion of relevant evidence if one of six reasons are present: Unfair prejudice, misleading the jury, confusing the issues, wasting time, undue delay, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence. The exclusion of relevant evidence, as long as it is in keeping with these reasons, is just. This is because Rule 403 keeps court cases from wasting the time of everyone involved, as well as preventing any unfair prejudice or confusion. Without Rule 403, courts would have a much harder time processing cases and making sure the justice system is efficient.