Which evidence exclusion rule mandates that the trial judge must exclude relevant evidence?

The Ohio mandatory exclusion rule is the correct choice because it requires the trial judge to exclude certain types of evidence, regardless of its relevance to the case. This rule is typically applied to specific situations defined by law, which may dictate that even relevant evidence is inadmissible if it falls into particular categories. For instance, evidence that has been obtained unlawfully, such as through illegal search and seizure, may be subject to mandatory exclusion.

In contrast, the discretionary exclusion rules, whether under federal law or Ohio law, allow judges to exclude evidence based on their assessment of probative value versus prejudicial impact. These discretionary rules provide judges with the authority to balance the interests of justice, which means that relevant evidence could be admitted even if it is potentially prejudicial or misleading. Therefore, the distinguishing factor in this context is that the Ohio mandatory exclusion rule imposes a strict requirement on judges to exclude certain evidence, rather than allowing them the discretion to admit or deny it based on its relevance or potential effects on the jury.