Opinion ID: 4154590
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Exclusion of documentary evidence

Text: We review evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion, reversing only for manifest error. United States v. Miller, 626 F.3d 682, 688 (2d Cir. 2010). Under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, a district court ʺmay exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.ʺ Fed. R. Evid. 403. The district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Gilmartinʹs documentary evidence, which included 3 argumentary materials regarding the ʺvoluntary natureʺ of filing tax returns and excerpts from the Internal Revenue Code, as it had the potential to confuse the jury. See United States v. Kraeger, 711 F.2d 6, 7‐8 (2d Cir. 1983) (per curiam); see also United States v. Payne, 978 F.2d 1177, 1182 (10th Cir. 1992). Furthermore, although the documents were excluded, the district court permitted Gilmartin to testify about the documents and the basis of his understanding of the tax laws. We agree that the probative value of the evidence did not substantially outweigh the danger of unfair prejudice or confusion.