The trial court may use Federal Rule of Evidence 403 to exclude relevant evidence if the court finds that the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or waste of resources.

United States v. Serrano, 434 F.3d 1003, 1005 (7th Cir. 2006) (upholding trial court's admission of the insurance documents as non-hearsay evidence because "the documents [were] not introduced for the truth....If a statement is assertive -- that is, if the declarant's statement does assert that some matter is true -- the statement is nevertheless non-hearsay if the statement is offered to prove that some matter other than the asserted matter is true.

United States v. Westmoreland, 312 F.3d 302, 627-628 (7th Cir. 2002) (upholding trial court's admission of co-defendant Abeln's statements qualified as statements against interest because the (a) "statements [such as, (1)....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.

United States v. Webb, 214 F.3d 962, 964-965 (8th Cir. 2000) (upholding trial court's admission of advocates' testimony about victim's statements on a prior assault because "the evidence was admissible under Rule....A prior statement of a witness is exempt from the prohibition against hearsay evidence if the prior statement is consistent with the witness' testimony at the trial or hearing at which the prior statement is offered, the prior statement is offered to rebut a express or implied charge of recent fabrication or motive, and the witness who made the prior statement testifies and is subject to cross-examination at the trial or hearing at which the prior statement is offered.