Evidence needs to be relevant in order to be admissible. But sometimes evidence is only relevant if something else is true. What is the standard for this conditional relevancy? The judge needs to look at all of the evidence and determine whether the jury could reasonably find the conditional fact true by a preponderance of the evidence.
Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (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 court simply examines all the evidence in the case and decides whether the jury could reasonably find the conditional fact[.]”