⚡ 10-Second Rule
Evidence gets in if it helps even a tiny bit, unless its harm badly outweighs its help.
🧒 ELI-10 Scene
Rosa's birthday cake vanished, and everyone suspects her dog, Biscuit. Muddy paw prints lead to the kitchen. The prints don't prove Biscuit did it. But they help a little, so Rosa's mom wants to hear about them. Rosa's brother also wants to show a video of Biscuit growling at the mailman last year. That video barely helps answer the cake question. It mostly just makes everyone hate Biscuit. Mom says the prints come in, but the growling video stays out.
⚖️ Actual Rule
Federal Rule of Evidence 401 provides: "Evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action." FRE 402 sets the default: "Relevant evidence is admissible unless any of the following provides otherwise: the United States Constitution; a federal statute; these rules; or other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court. Irrelevant evidence is not admissible." FRE 403 supplies the safety valve: "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."
ELI-10 translation: helpful facts come in, unless their harm is much bigger than their help.
🔍 Ask These Questions
- Does the evidence make any fact more or less probable, even slightly? (Does it help at all? A tiny nudge counts.)
- Is that fact of consequence to the case? (Does the case actually care about this fact?)
- If both yes, it is relevant and admissible by default under FRE 402. (Helpful facts start with a green light.)
- Does a specific exclusionary rule — character, hearsay, privilege, settlement — knock it out anyway? (Check the special "keep out" rules next.)
- Under FRE 403, is probative value substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusion, or waste of time? (Only a big, lopsided harm keeps helpful facts out.)
- Remember the tilt: 403 favors admission, and close calls come in. (Tie goes to letting the jury hear it.)
⚠️ Bar Trap
Exam language: Distractors invite you to exclude evidence merely because it is "prejudicial" or "does not conclusively establish" a fact. Both flip the actual standards: relevance requires only any tendency, not proof by itself, and FRE 403 requires that the danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweigh probative value — all effective evidence prejudices the other side.
ELI-10: Evidence doesn't have to win the whole case alone; one brick helps build a wall. And "it hurts my side" is never enough — the hurt must be unfair and much bigger than the help.
🧪 Question
A pedestrian sued a driver for negligence after being struck in a crosswalk, alleging the driver was speeding. The driver contends he was traveling at the speed limit when his brakes suddenly failed. At trial, the pedestrian offers testimony from the driver's coworker that, minutes before the collision, the driver telephoned her and said he was "running way behind" for a job interview scheduled across town. The driver objects that the testimony is irrelevant because it does not show how fast he was actually driving.
Should the court admit the testimony?
(A) No, because evidence of the driver's character for punctuality is inadmissible to prove conduct. (B) No, because the testimony does not establish the driver's actual speed at the time of the collision. (C) Yes, but only if the pedestrian first introduces corroborating evidence of excessive speed. (D) Yes, because a motive to hurry has some tendency to make speeding more probable.
Answer: (D). Relevance under FRE 401 demands only that the evidence make a fact of consequence — here, speeding — somewhat more probable. A driver late for an interview has a reason to hurry, which nudges the speeding question in the pedestrian's favor. Nothing on these facts triggers a 403 exclusion.
💡 Why the Wrong Answers Are Wrong
- (A) mislabels the evidence: being late that day is a specific circumstance showing motive, not a character trait offered to prove propensity.
- (B) demands conclusive proof; FRE 401 asks only for "any tendency," and single items of evidence never have to prove the fact alone.
- (C) invents a corroboration requirement that appears nowhere in FRE 401, 402, or 403.
- ELI-10: The misconception is thinking each piece of evidence must prove the whole point by itself. Courts collect small clues; every brick that helps the wall gets to come in.
