properly exercised [its] discretion when [it] excluded [the evidence] as cumulative.”). Second, if the Court allowed the Defendant to bring a wealth of evidence of his “loving relationship” with C.T., the jury might have been misled or confused into believing that the Defendant could rebut the Government’s evidence of intent by bringing a larger amount of evidence supporting an alternative purpose. Considering these interests, the Court finds that the probative value of such evidence was “substantially outweighed by a danger of.. .confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time [and] needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,” in violation of F.R.E, 403. Therefore, excluding the additional evidence was within the Court’s discretion. See Miles, 207 F.3d at 993 (<HOLDING>). The Defendant also argues that the Court
holding that the jury is the judge of the weight and credibility given to witness testimony holding that trial court abused its discretion in permitting the testimony of a witness who was not listed in the pretrial order and no reason was given for the failure to list the witness holding that the court has the discretion to bar a defendant from introducing documents that would have served no purpose other than to repeat the testimony given by the witness holding that a trial court abused its discretion by excluding the testimony of an expert witness where the testimony would have been relevant to show that the defendant breached a duty of care holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting testimony to only one witness where additional witnesses would have provided the same testimony