The so-called undue prejudice rule empowers a trial judge to exclude relevant and probative evidence in order to reduce the risk of prejudice and avert other risks and harms.

United States v. Shryock, 342 F.3d 948, 982 (9th Cir. 2003) (upholding trial court's exclusion of Hernandez's statement under the residual hearsay exception because it did not meet the requirements of Rule 807 as "the....A statement is admissible under the hearsay exception created by Federal Rule of Evidence 807 or a comparable State rule only if circumstantial evidence shows that the affected statement is as trustworthy as the statements that are made admissible by the hearsay exceptions created by Federal Rules of Evidence 803 and 804 or by comparable State rules.

United States v. Moore, 27 F.3d 969, 974 (4th Cir. 1994) (upholding trial court's ruling that allowed the government to introduce evidence of accused's bankruptcy to rebut his offered testimony as to his character; held, "once (accused) introduced evidence of his trustworthiness and dependability in...If a criminal defendant offers evidence of his or her character circumstantially - to show he or she did not commit the crime charged -- the prosecution can offer rebutting evidence of defendant's character.

United States v. Vega, 285 F.3d 256, 262 (3d Cir. 2002) (upholding trial court's admission into evidence of the 1997 drug conspiracy because "based on this evidence, a jury could reasonably conclude that the alleged 1997 drug conspiracy occurred, and that [accused] was a participant in it." ...Evidence of another crime, wrong, or act is admissible if there is sufficient evidence to support a finding by a reasonable juror that the other crime, wrong, or act occurred. Clear and convincing evidence is unnecessary; "sufficient" means only that there must be enough evidence to make the other crime, wrong, or act relevant.