Rules governing the admissibility of evidence

Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 690 (1988) ("In determining whether the Government has introduced sufficient evidence to meet Rule 104(b), the trial court neither weighs credibility nor makes a finding that the Government has proved the conditional fact by a preponderance of the evidence. The...Evidence of a condition upon which the relevance of evidence depends is sufficient if a reasonable trier (such as a jury) can find by a preponderance of the evidence that the condition exists.

Cf. United States v. Sherlin, 67 F.3d 1208, pin? (6th Cir. 1995) (accused offered privately-arranged exculpatory polygraph test; held, exclusion was proper under Federal Rule of Evidence 403).Polygraph test results are insufficiently reliable to be admissible.

Fed. R. Evid. 401 advisory committee's note ("The rule uses the phrase 'fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action' to describe the kind of fact to which proof may properly be directed. The language is that of California Evidence Code ? 210; it has the advantage of avoiding the loosely used and ambiguous word...The technical definition of relevance in Federal Rule of Evidence 401 and in comparable State rules provides that evidence is "relevant" only if the evidence increases or decreases the probability of a fact that is "of consequence to the determination of the action."