What is the test for abuse of discretion in a federal district court's balancing under Federal Rule of Evidence 403?

We review a district court's balancing under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 for abuse of discretion. United States v. Polouizzi, 564 F.3d 142, 152 (2d Cir. 2009). The

Page 5

"decision to admit or exclude evidence will not be overturned unless we conclude that the court acted arbitrarily or irrationally." United States v. Thai, 29 F.3d 785, 813 (2d Cir. 1994). The government generally has a right to present evidence, rather than accept a stipulation, in order to "tell [the jury] a story of guiltiness[,] . . . to support an inference of guilt, to convince the jurors that a guilty verdict would be morally reasonable[, and] . . . to point to the discrete elements of a defendant's legal fault." Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 187-88 (1997). However, "[i]n limited circumstances, the [g]overnment can be required to accept a stipulation by the defendant to a particular fact, rather than present evidence proving the stipulated fact." United States v. Velazquez, 246 F.3d 204, 211 (2d Cir. 2001).