Courts have approved jury instructions saying that a reasonable doubt is a doubt that would cause a reasonable person to hesitate to act before making an important or critical private decision.

United States v. McCellan, 868 F.2d 210, 214 (7th Cir. 1989) (upholding trial court's admission of the testimony of defendant's ex-wife from the 1986 adversary proceeding in bankruptcy because his ex-wife was unavailable....For purposes of the hearsay exceptions created by Federal Rule of Evidence 804 or a comparable State rule a declarant is "unavailable" within the meaning of Rule 804(b) or a comparable State rule if the declarant is unable to be present or to testify at the hearing because of death or then existing physical or mental illness or infirmity; but a declarant is not "unavailable" if the declarant's absence is due to the procurement or wrongdoing of the proponent of a statement for the purpose of preventing the witness from attending or testifying.

Fed. R. Evid. 403 advisory committee's note ("The case law recognizes that certain circumstances call for the exclusion of evidence which is of unquestioned relevance. These circumstances entail risks which range all the way from inducing decision on a purely emotional basis, at one extreme, to nothing more harmful than merely wasting...The trial court may exclude relevant and probative evidence as unduly prejudicial if it concludes that the evidence presents the risk of juror emotion or passion and that this risk substantially outweighs the probative value of the evidence.

United States v. Photogrammetric Data Services, Inc., 259 F.3d 229, 245-246 (4th Cir. 2001) (upholding trial court's admission of statements of defendant's manager as employee's statements as evidence against the corporation because "[manager's]....Federal Rule of Evidence of Evidence 804(b)(3) or a comparable State rule creates a hearsay exception for a statement which was at the time of its making so far contrary to the declarant's pecuniary or proprietary interest, or so far tended to subject the declarant to civil or criminal liability, or to render invalid a claim by the declarant against another, that a reasonable person in the declarant's position would not have made the statement unless believing it to be true. A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered to exculpate the accused is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement.