403 Exclusion of relevant evidence on grounds of prejudice, confusion, or waste of time

A judge can keep out evidence even if it's relevant to the case. This happens when the evidence could cause more harm than good. For example, if evidence might make the jury angry or biased instead of helping them understand the facts, the judge can leave it out.

The judge also looks at other problems the evidence might cause. If it would confuse the jury, take up too much time, or just repeat things the jury already heard, the judge can decide not to allow it. The key point is that the evidence's downsides need to clearly outweigh its value before a judge will block it.

This rule gives judges control over trials so they stay fair and focused. It stops one side from overwhelming the jury with things that stir up emotion rather than proving facts. It also keeps trials from dragging on longer than they need to.