Rule 11-403 Excluding relevant evidence for prejudice, confusion, waste of time, or other reasons.

Judges have the power to keep certain evidence out of a trial, even if it's relevant to the case. Just because evidence helps prove something doesn't mean it automatically gets shown to the jury. If the risks of using that evidence outweigh how helpful it actually is, the judge can block it.

There are several reasons a judge might do this. Evidence might unfairly sway the jury's emotions instead of helping them think clearly about the facts. It might confuse the issues in the case or mislead the jury about what really matters. It could also drag out the trial without adding much value, waste everyone's time, or simply repeat things the jury has already heard.

The key idea is balance. The evidence has to be more harmful or distracting than it is useful before a judge will leave it out. This gives judges control over keeping trials fair and focused, so juries can make decisions based on clear facts instead of getting sidetracked or emotionally manipulated.