The best evidence rule is inapplicable -- the original writing or the original of another thing to which the rule applies -- need not be used to prove the contents of the writing or such other thing if the original is in the opponent's possession when evidence other than the original is offered to show the co9ntents of the original and adequate notice was given to the opponent that the contents of the writing or other things would be the subject of proof at trial and the opponent does not produce the original at the trial of hearing.

United States v. Williams, 737 F.2d 594, 608 (7th Cir. 1984) (upholding trial court's admission of Webbe's grand-jury testimonies as prior inconsistent statements because "Webbe's trial and grand-jury testimonies....A positive or direct contradiction between the testimony at the trial or proceeding and a prior statement is not required to make the prior statement "inconsistent" for purposes of the hearsay exemption created by Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(A) or by a comparable State rule. It is sufficient if there is a disparity between the two statements such that a reasonable person might question the credibility of the person who made them.

Tanberg v. Sholtis, 401 F.3d 1151, 1169 (10th Cir. 2005) (holding, in plaintiffs' action against police officer for false arrest and excessive use of force, that evidence of police officer's prior arrest incidents was inadmissible and properly excluded by the trial court "given the lack of similarity...If another crime or wrong is offered under the second sentence of Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) to show the identity of an actor, wrongdoer, or defendant (e.g., to show that a criminal defendant rather than someone else committed the crime for which defendant is on trial), the other crime or wrong and the act, wrong, or crime at issue at trial must have been committed in a distinctive as well as similar fashion.

Fed. R. Evid. 403 ("Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of ... confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury").The trial court may use Rule of Evidence 403 to exclude relevant evidence if the court finds that the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of confusion of the issues or misleading the jury.