§ 40.160 Rule 403. Exclusion of relevant evidence on grounds of prejudice, confusion or undue delay

Judges have the power to keep out evidence even when it's relevant to the case. This happens when the evidence could cause more harm than good.

A judge will weigh how much the evidence actually helps prove something against the risks it brings. Those risks include unfairly turning the jury against one side, confusing the jury about what the case is really about, or misleading them entirely. The judge also looks at whether presenting the evidence would waste time or simply repeat what the jury has already heard.

If the risks clearly outweigh how useful the evidence is, the judge can decide not to let it in. This gives judges control over trials so that jurors focus on fair, clear facts instead of getting sidetracked or swayed by evidence that stirs up emotion without adding real value to the case.