0512

Whatever you decided, you are right. Judges have complete discretion.

I think all three have some minimal relevance on the issue of whether it would be in the child's best interests to give custody to Sonny Cofax, so none may be excluded as totally irrelevant. At the same time, these are just isolated incidents not involving anything fundamental to the parent-child relationship like food, clothing, shelter and education, so they all have low probative value (I give them about a 3) and may be excluded under Rule 403 if they are unfairly prejudicial, confusing, or a waste of time.
A judge would be within his or her rights to exclude this evidence as unfairly prejudicial because it concerns professional wrestling, public urination, rock-and-roll and foul language. However, in this case, none of these factors seems likely to distract the jury from their central task of deciding the best interests of the child. Indeed, they seem central to that very question. If I were the judge, I would let it all in because I think justice is better served by admitting evidence than excluding it. I think a real judge would do the same, only he or she would probably strike the word "assholes" and instruct the witness not to use any more dirty words.

Questions? E-mail tanford@indiana.edu and refer to 0512.

I see neither of the other two danger -- waste of time or confusion of the issues.

Problem 5B, part two -- A witness says he has seen the driver (Jane) using her cell phone while driving, and not stopping at intersections, many times.  If this were objected to under Rule 403 as confusing the issues (past events and the present event) would you let either item of evidence in if you were the judge?  When you have decided, click here .