Does the trial court have an added dollop of discretion or does it have absolute or almost almost absolute discretion when assessing the relevance or the possibly unduly prejudicial nature of visual and demonstrative evidence?

United States v. Holmes, 406 F.3d 337, 349 (5th Cir. 2005) (upholding trial court's admission of the videotaped and transcribed deposition testimony of defendant's co-conspirator because "the government did not offer....The Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause places no limits on the admission at trial of nonhearsay statements made prior to or outside of trial.

Santa Barbara Capital Mgmt. v. Neilson (In re Slatkin), 525 F.3d 805, 812-813 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding, in plaintiff trustee's adversary proceeding against defendant investors, that the bankruptcy court properly admitted the debtor's plea agreement....A statement not specifically covered by Federal Rule of Evidence 803 or 804 or by comparable State rules, but having equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, is not excluded by the hearsay rule, if the court determines that (A) the statement is offered as evidence of a material fact; (B) the statement is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence which the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts; and (C) the general purposes of these rules and the interests of justice will best be served by admission of the statement into evidence.

Cf. United States v. Alarcon-Simi, 300 F.3d 1172, 1175-1176 (9th Cir. 2002) (upholding trial court's exclusion of defendant's post-arrest statement to Special Agent Vanderploeg as an excited utterance because it "did not relate to any....A statement falls within the hearsay exception created by Federal Rule of Evidence 803(2) or a comparable State rule for excited utterances, only if the declarant (the maker of the statement) was under the stress of the startling event or condition when he or she made the statement that relates to that startling event or condition.