Evidence of untruthfulness may be excluded as unduly prejudicial under the standards laid down in rules such as the federal "undue prejudice" rule codified by Federal Rule of Evidence 403. However, if specific rules governing impeachment call for the use of different prejudice standards, the standards set forth in those specific rules govern rather than the standards set forth in a general undue prejudice rule such as Federal Rule of Evidence 403.

United States v. Benkahla, 530 F.3d 300, 309 (4th Cir. 2008) ("Judgments of evidentiary relevance and prejudice are fundamentally a matter of trial management, for '[t]rial judges are much closer to the pulse of a trial than we can ever be and broad discretion is necessarily accorded them.' United...Determinations of the relevance of evidence and of claims that evidence is unduly prejudicial are mainly for the trial court and are reviewable only for abuse of discretion.

United States v. Marino, 277 F.3d 11, 26 (1st Cir. 2002) (upholding trial court's admission of the Hilton tapes as co-conspirator's statements because "the statements were made in furtherance of and in the course of....A statement falls within the hearsay exemption for statements of co-conspirators only if the statement was made in furtherance of the conspiracy.

United States v. Washington, 434 F.3d 7, 14-15 (1st Cir. 2006) (upholding trial court's ruling which allowed agent Genese to testify about informant's prior statement [that the name of the person from whom he had purchased....A prior statement of a witness is exempt from the prohibition against hearsay evidence if the prior statement is consistent with the witness' testimony at the trial or hearing at which the prior statement is offered, the prior statement is offered to rebut a express or implied charge of recent fabrication or motive, and the witness who made the prior statement testifies and is subject to cross-examination at the trial or hearing at which the prior statement is offered.