Which rationale can lead to the exclusion of evidence due to misleading the jury?

The rationale for excluding evidence that presents cumulative information stems from the principle that such evidence can lead to undue emphasis on a particular point, potentially misleading the jury. Cumulative evidence is defined as evidence that repeats what has already been established and does not provide additional value or insight into the facts of the case. When evidence is merely duplicative, it can overload the jury with repetitive information, undermining their ability to make an impartial and informed decision.

Judges are typically concerned that presenting excessive cumulative evidence may divert the jury's attention from more critical aspects of the case, causing confusion or frustration rather than contributing substantively to the fact-finding process. Thus, when the probative value of evidence is substantially outweighed by the potential for confusion or misleading, it can be justifiably excluded.

While excessive detail in testimony, lack of documentation, and use of hearsay may present issues, they do not pertain directly to the concerns about misleading the jury in the same manner as cumulative information. These other issues may affect the credibility or strength of evidence but do not inherently relate to the jury's ability to discern the facts through the clarity and focus of the evidence presented.