With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". occurring during Chief Walters’s tenure, and such claims were only added to § 1981 in 1991. See Mem. of Decision [doc. # 96] at 20. The probative value of pre-1991 evidence is significantly reduced by its remoteness to the time period at issue, namely 2002 to 2006. See Davidson v. Smith, 9 F.3d 4, 7 (2d Cir.1993) (approving of the district court’s decision to exclude evidence as too remote pursuant to Rule 403). In addition, the Town’s final policymakers before 1991 are unlikely to be the same as the relevant final policymakers for the purposes of this case. As a result, pre-1991 evidence should be excluded as more likely to confuse and mislead the jury, and unnecessarily delay the ultimate conclusion of the trial. See City of New York v. Pullman Inc., 662 F.2d 910, 915 (2d Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>); In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig., 611

A: holding that trial court has discretion to determine whether probative value of photo outweighs prejudicial effect
B: holding that inextricably intertwined evidence is intrinsic evidence that is admissible if its probative value outweighs the danger of prejudice
C: holding that evidence should be excluded where the likelihood that it would confuse the jury and protract the proceedings outweighs its probative value
D: holding that prior conviction shall be admissible evidence for impeachment purposes unless danger of undue prejudice substantially outweighs probative value
C.