Rule 5.403 Excluding relevant evidence for prejudice, confusion, waste of time, or other reasons

Even if evidence is relevant and helps prove something in a case, a judge can still keep it out if it causes more harm than good. This happens when the evidence might unfairly sway the jury's emotions, confuse the issues being decided, or mislead the jury about what the evidence actually shows.

Judges also look at practical concerns. If evidence would take up too much time, cause unnecessary delays, or just repeats what has already been shown through other evidence, the judge can leave it out. The idea is to keep trials fair and focused, so the jury bases its decision on solid facts instead of getting sidetracked or overwhelmed by evidence that adds little real value.

This gives judges the power to act like a filter. They weigh how useful a piece of evidence is against the risks it brings into the courtroom. If the risks clearly outweigh the benefits, the evidence does not get shown to the jury.