Is there any reason why the substance of a conviction for a prior fraud conviction is excludable under Rule 403 of the Criminal Code?

The substance of the fraud charge is also excludable under Rule 403. The probative value of this evidence, which adds nothing to the government's theory of motive, is minimal or non-existent. In contrast, the risk of prejudice is great, because the jury would be presented with evidence that Love committed a different and prior crime for financial gainand thus would be invited to believe that Love has a propensity to commit such crimes. That risk substantially outweighs any probative value the substance of the fraud conviction might have. The substance, name and nature of Love's fraud conviction will therefore be excluded at trial. See United States v. Hinkson. 585 F.3d 1247, 1265-66 (9th Cir. 2009) (approving the exclusion under Rule 403 of evidence that did not speak directly to an issue in the case and posed a "danger of confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, and waste of time"); see also Old Chief v. United States. 519 U.S. 172, 185 (1997) ("[E]vidence of the name or nature of the prior offense generally carries a risk of unfair prejudice to the defendant.").