# Legal Quesion: Explain "too prejudicial" **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 26, 2013, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-quesion-explain-too-prejudicial/654048 "2013-03-26T21:42:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![TreacherousCretin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/treacherouscretin/32/476_2.png) [@TreacherousCretin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TreacherousCretin)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2013, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-quesion-explain-too-prejudicial/654048/1 "2013-03-26T21:42:16Z")
In a recent high-profile legal case (yes, that one), certain matters of fact were ruled “too prejudicial” to be allowed into evidence. What’s the difference between “overwhelming evidence” and “too prejudicial”? I’ll take my answer off the air. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2013, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-quesion-explain-too-prejudicial/654048/2 "2013-03-26T22:46:54Z")
It’s not that it’s too prejudicial. It’s that it’s _unfairly_ prejudicial. Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence says: > [@](#): > > 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. There are essentially equivalent provisions in every state evidence code. It’s a balancing test; the court weighs the permissible inference of the piece of evidence against impermissible ones. Generally it refers to the probability that a piece of evidence will create an emotional response in the factfinder that will prevent them from appropriately weighing all other facts. For example, in United States v. Cunningham, 694 F.3d 372 (3d Cir. 2012), the trial court admitted videos of young children being tied up and raped as evidence that the defendant had been in possession of child pornography. The appellate court ruled that the horrifying nature of the videos would likely have precluded the jury from making a rational decision to convict. Since there was plenty of other evidence available to prove that the defendant possessed child pornography, there was no need for it to be admitted. In a civil case, a court might exclude evidence such as a plaintiff’s drug conviction, since the probative value would be outweighed by the likely inference that the plaintiff was a bad person. ---
**Author:** ![Kevbo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e47774/32.png) [@Kevbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kevbo)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2013, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-quesion-explain-too-prejudicial/654048/3 "2013-03-26T22:58:01Z")
At some level evidence may be so horrific as to induce a “somebody has to pay for this” response, regardless if that somebody is actually responsible. Such evidence says that there is a monster among us. The accused monster is sitting on the dock. How can we possibly release such a monster on society? See how that word “accused” got lost? ---
**Author:** ![TreacherousCretin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/treacherouscretin/32/476_2.png) [@TreacherousCretin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TreacherousCretin)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2013, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-quesion-explain-too-prejudicial/654048/4 "2013-03-27T04:24:53Z")
I think I get it. For example: Evidence of a defendant’s evil/criminal character doesn’t necessarily indicate guilt for the specific charges. Is that more or less accurate? ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2013, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-quesion-explain-too-prejudicial/654048/5 "2013-03-27T04:30:35Z")
> [@TreacherousCretin](#): > > I think I get it. For example: Evidence of a defendant’s evil/criminal character doesn’t necessarily indicate guilt for the specific charges. Is that more or less accurate? Well, in that case, it’s more a question of relevance. If it’s not relevant, it doesn’t get to the jury (in theory) even without being too prejudicial. The “unfair prejudice” argument comes in when something arguably relevant but that the relevance is outweighed by the prejudicial effect. Autopsy photos come to mind. Yeah, the jury might learn something from the internal organs, but that can be described adequately by the medical examiner. The actual photos aren’t necessary and would be unfairly prejudicial because they’re so gruesome. But there are infinite number of possible examples. ---
**Author:** ![Quercus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/7ab992/32.png) [@Quercus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quercus)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2013, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-quesion-explain-too-prejudicial/654048/6 "2013-03-27T13:09:37Z")
> [@TreacherousCretin](#): > > I think I get it. For example: Evidence of a defendant’s evil/criminal character doesn’t necessarily indicate guilt for the specific charges. Is that more or less accurate? I think it’s less that the evidence is not relevant, it’s that the jury might find it hard to weigh its value, usually because it would predispose the jury to not like the defendant. Maybe a (completely exaggerated) example is a guy on trial in Boston. Defense argues that evidence the defendant was wearing a NY Yankees hat is prejudicial, since the jury of loyal Bostonians will dislike the defendant knowing he’s a Yankees fan, and will therefore tend not to judge him fairly. If it the hat was spattered with blood matching the victim’s, and none of the defendant’s other clothes were, a judge might decide it’s really important evidence, so needs to be in. If, on the other hand, it’s just to establish that the defendant was dressed to go outside, the judge might decide that evidence the defendant was wearing a coat is enough, and the hat would just tend to prejudice the jury. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2013, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-quesion-explain-too-prejudicial/654048/7 "2013-03-27T13:47:12Z")
> [@TreacherousCretin](#): > > I think I get it. For example: Evidence of a defendant’s evil/criminal character doesn’t necessarily indicate guilt for the specific charges. Is that more or less accurate? As **Procrustus** says, if it isn’t relevant _at all_, it won’t be admitted anyway. The test is whether the inference it _is_ relevant to is important enough to outweigh the danger of prejudice (and whether the evidence is actually necessary to prove that fact). ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2013, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-quesion-explain-too-prejudicial/654048/8 "2013-03-27T14:37:08Z")
To the OP, the point is not technically whether something is _too prejudicial_, but whether it is _unfairly prejudicial_ or if the prejudice outweighs the legitimate value of the evidence. A judge or lawyer may shorthand the concept as “too prejudicial,” but that is not a valid reason to exclude evidence. Eta. Many trials have evidence that is \*\*\*extremely prejudicial \*\*\*to one party or the other, such as a video of the bank robbery or DNA evidence. It’s admissible, of course. ---
**Author:** ![TreacherousCretin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/treacherouscretin/32/476_2.png) [@TreacherousCretin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TreacherousCretin)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2013, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-quesion-explain-too-prejudicial/654048/9 "2013-03-27T17:08:00Z")
Ignorance fought and vanquished. Thanks all.