I don’t understand this English question and need help to study.
I need you to check the grammar,
Relevance is the initial getaway to consider the evidence to be admissible. Each evidence has to get through the relevance getaway. After that, there are many rules of evidence. Each rule of evidence is like a filter and each filter could block the admissibility of the evidence. Rule 401 only describes the meaning of relevant evidence; it doesn’t cover if the evidence could be considered to be prejudicial. Rule 402 of the Federal Rules of Evidence stated that all relevant evidence is admissible (Bowen, Module 3), and rule 403 covers the evidence that is considered to be prejudicial.
All the evidence is prejudicial, but in rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence stated that 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 (Bowen, Module 3). I think the court trial outcomes must be based on the evidence that could prove or disprove that the defendant committed the crime, not by the things that would influences the jury emotionally like the race or the color of the defendant, and if the evidence is highly relevant, it doesn’t mean that the danger is low and vice versa. Moreover, each piece of evidence must be put in high consideration to know if it is truly relevant or not.