What does it mean for evidence to be 'prejudicial'?

Evidence is considered 'prejudicial' when it has the potential to cause jurors to give it undue weight in their deliberations. This means that the evidence, while it might be relevant, could improperly influence the jury's perception of the case. It may elicit strong emotional responses or create biases that detract from a fair assessment of the facts presented. In legal terms, 'prejudicial' refers to the possibility that certain evidence might lead to a decision based on factors other than the actual merits of the case.

The other options do not accurately capture the essence of what makes evidence prejudicial. If evidence is irrelevant, it is not admissible in court, and therefore, it cannot be considered prejudicial. While it is true that prejudicial evidence can overshadow other evidence, this is a secondary effect rather than the primary definition. Likewise, evidence that has no probative value is also inadmissible, removing the possibility of it being prejudicial. Thus, the primary concern with prejudicial evidence is how it may influence the jurors' judgment, leading them away from a reasoned decision-making process based on the evidence presented in the case.