Opinion ID: 437695
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Items Actually Admitted Into Evidence.

Text: 18 Hans argues that everything seized from Bauman was irrelevant to the question of whether Hans participated in the robbery. He concedes that these items had some relevance to the degree that they corroborated Grzybowski's testimony, but he contends that this minimal relevance is far outweighed by the prejudicial effect on the jury. Hans argues that the trial judge misapplied Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence by ruling admissible items seized from Bauman. 19 The law in this circuit is clear: a trial judge has broad discretion to evaluate whether the probative value of relevant evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury. Fed.R.Evid. 403; see United States v. Clifford, 704 F.2d 86, 89 (3d Cir.1983). Absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion, appellate courts will not disturb a trial judge's ruling under Rule 403. United States v. Dalfonso, 707 F.2d 757, 762 (3d Cir.1983). 20 The district judge clearly did not abuse his discretion in allowing most of the evidence seized from Bauman to be introduced into evidence against Hans. Because these items tended to corroborate Grzybowski's testimony, they were relevant. The Federal Rules define relevant evidence as evidence with any tendency to make the existence of any [material] fact .... more or less probable. Fed.R.Evid. 401 (emphasis added). Under this standard, everything seized from Bauman was relevant. 21 Moreover, it is clear from the record that the district judge evaluated all the proposed evidence to see whether it presented a danger of unfair prejudice to Hans. The judge ultimately excluded some evidence, such as the handgun and the bullet-proof vests, because of the danger of prejudice to Hans. Under these circumstances, we cannot say that the trial judge abused his discretion by admitting these other items into evidence. 22