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. Crawford, 214 F.3d 873, 875-876 (8th Cir. 2005) (upholding admission of accused's 1994 conviction for abusive sexual contact of an eight-year old girl because such it was relevant as it involved a similar crime of sexual assault of an eight-year old girl).Federal Rule of Evidence 413 and comparable rules in a few States create an express exception to the prohibition against circumstantial use of character, the prohibition against the use of character to show conduct. Rules such as Rule 413 provide that in a criminal trial for sexual assault evidence of the defendant's commission of another offense or offenses of sexual assault is admissible.

United States v. Abel, 469 U.S. 45, pin? (1984) ("It seems clear to us that the proffered testimony with respect to Mills' membership in the Aryan Brotherhood sufficed to show potential bias in favor of respondent; because of the tenets of the organization described, it might...The principle of multiple admissibility: if evidence is inadmissible for one purpose, it may be admissible for another purpose; if evidence is inadmissible to show one fact, the evidence, if relevant to another fact, may be admissible to show the other fact.

Cf. United States v. Aboumoussalem, 726 F.2d 906, 911-912 (2d Cir. 1984) (upholding trial court's exclusion of irrelevant evidence that defendant was duped into transporting contraband by his co-conspirators because "it tends to make the existence of a consequential fact, defendant's knowledge,...The prohibition against circumstantial character evidence applies to non-parties.