With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". concluded the material would have been inadmissible under Rule 403 because it would have been unfairly prejudicial, would have confused the issues, and would have been needlessly cumulative, because the jury was already aware that Allen was cooperating with the government to avoid corruption charges stemming from his relationship with Kohring, Kott, and others. We disagree. The evidence was certainly prejudicial, but not unfairly so. Even if there is some danger of unfair prejudice or confusion of the issues, that danger does not “substantially outweigh” the probative value of the information. Evidence that Allen attempted to suborn perjurious testimony from one of the minors and attempted to make another unavailable for a trial would have been highly t. 1256, 157 L.Ed.2d 1166 (2004) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, evidence of Allen’s sexual misconduct

A: holding error in admission of evidence is harmless when it was merely cumulative to other evidence in the record
B: holding that new evidence is evidence not previously of record and not merely cumulative of other evidence
C: holding impeachment evidence was not merely cumulative where the withheld evidence was of a different character than evidence already known to the defense
D: holding no abuse of discretion in trial courts exclusion of evidence where evidence was cumulative
C.