Art. 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 might cause more harm than good. For example, if evidence could make the jury angry or emotional in a way that isn't fair to one side, the judge can block it.

The judge also looks at whether evidence might confuse the jury or lead them down the wrong path. If evidence is likely to mislead people about what really matters in the case, it can be left out. The same goes for evidence that would take up too much time without adding much value to the case.

Basically, this rule gives judges the power to keep trials fair and focused. Just because evidence is technically related to the case doesn't mean it has to be shown to the jury. If the risks of using that evidence are much greater than what it actually proves, the judge can say no to it.