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.

Pugh v. Tribune Co., 521 F.3d 686, 695 (7th Cir. 2008) (upholding trial court's dismissal of plaintiffs' claims for failure to establish the primary liability and direct liability of any individual defendant where it was said that subsequent remedials measures, such as adding a certification requirement...A subsequent remedial measure is not admissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a defect in the product or its design, or a need for warning or instruction.

In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, pin? (1970) (the federal constitutional guarantee of due process mandates use of the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal trials).In a criminal trial the government's burden of persuasion is to establish a criminal defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a federal constitutional requirement that is applicable to the states as well to the federal government.

Hall v. Commissioner, 729 F.2d 632, 634-635 (9th Cir. 1984) (holding that the tax court properly excluded the undated annual contribution statement as a business record because no foundation was laid by a qualified....The exception created by Federal Rule of Evidence 803(11) for religious records applies only if it was the regular practice of the church to keep such records and rely upon them in the conduct of its business.