Fre 403 Vs Fre-404 Essay

FRE 403 and FRE 404(b) interact in a variety of degrees usually battling the other, in a courtroom regarding admissible evidence and on what grounds the argument may be made for or against using FRE 403 and FRE 404(b). These rules are vital inside a courtroom and the interaction between these different rules, is crucial to those presenting their case. According to our textbook, Evidence for Paralegals, in chapter 2 page 22, we learn a little history behind these rules as it pertained to evidence and the courts. Long before the Federal Rules of Evidence existed, the courts would come to conclusions about evidence by their relevancy legally. This meant that any evidence introduced would be decided that although it may be of sound logic to enter

In a court room battle there is another Federal Rule of Evidence that may try to knock a few FRE 403’s out of the way.

FRE 404 (b) can sometimes be the golden ticket that can counter hit FRE 403. FRE 404(b) will give a slight loop hole to get that excluded evidence under FRE 403, to be entered into evidence using the rules as found in FRE 404(b). In as much, the FRE 404(b) comes into play when the once excludable evidence may be admitted under this rule labeled as evidence of extrinsic offenses when one side is needing it to prove a point or their case by doing so it would prove, “motive, opportunity, intent preparation, plan, knowledge, identity. In a criminal trial this would be extremely important.

Therefore, many times criminal prosecutors will use the FRE Rule 404 (b) and introduce that same exluded evidence under 403, into the courts and into the minds to set the jury up for an impression about the defendant in a trial in which they hope will be a great influence over the jury and leave them believing or influenced their thinking that the person standing trial must be doing or had done what it is they are accused of and being tried