The danger of confusion warrants the exclusion of evidence where the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger that the jury will become confused as to the material issues in the case, due to litigation of truly collateral issues.{footnote}Firemen’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Thien, 63 F.3d 754 (8th Cir. 1995).
See generally FRE 403.{/footnote}  Exclusion has been held an "extraordinary remedy" that should be used sparingly.{footnote}  Hogan v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 812 F.2d 409, 411 n.2 (8th Cir. 1987); K-B Trucking Co. v. Riss Int’l Corp., 763 F.2d 1148, 1155 (10th Cir. 1985).{/footnote}  The trial court is in the best position to evaluate the evidence, however, and the required balancing under FRE 403.{footnote}  Bohannon v. Pegelow, 652 F.2d 729, 732 (7th Cir. 1981); Hogan v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 812 F.2d 409, 411 n.2 (8th Cir. 1987).{/footnote}