put, it could cause the jury to focus on English’s character flaws and not on whether her damages are related to the bus accident. The jury may decide English is not entitled to pain and suffering damages, or it may speculate she would use any damage award to abuse drugs. This, of course, would be impermissible reasoning to justify a verdict for Greyhound. The risk of unfair prejudice, however, can be eliminated if English stipulates she will not seek damages for the lien from the State of New York for prescription drug payments, and that she lacked consistency with her medical care both before and after the accident. Her stipulation would diminish the relevance of her drug and alcohol abuse. Cf. Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 191-92, 117 S.Ct. 644, 136 L.Ed.2d 574 (1997) (<HOLDING>). Her stipulation will preclude English from
holding that a creditor objecting to the dischargeability of a debt under  523a must prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence holding that as a general rule the prosecution is entitled to prove its case by evidence of its own choice recognizing that in parental termination proceedings the fundamental liberty interest of parents must be balanced with societys interest in protecting the welfare of children holding that the probity of the evidence must be balanced against the considerations contained in  90403 recognizing that a partys right to prove its case without stipulations that diminish its full evidentiary force must be balanced with the need to minimize unfair prejudice under rule 403