Rule 403. Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons: The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence. Yes 1. What is the relationship between Rules 401 and 403? 2. What appears to have been the intent behind Rule 403? Does the way in which it is worded tell you anything about its intended purpose? If so, how? 3. A's lawyer offers a piece of evidence. B's lawyer objects, citing Rule 403 and urging that the evidence must be excluded because it "prejudices" B. Will this claim, by itself, result in an order sustaining B's objection and excluding the evidence in question? Why/why not? 4. Find and read three cases that address Rule 403. Each case has to have been decided by either a federal circuit court, the Arizona Supreme Court, or the Arizona Court of Appeals. 5. Cite the cases. In discussing each case, talk enough about the underlying facts enough to illuminate the "403" issue. What does the case tell you about how Rule 403 should be interpreted and applied? Do you agree with the Court's conclusion(s) about Rule 403? Why/why not