With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". other crimes evidence was not “substantially outweighed” by the danger of unfair prejudice or other considerations under Rule 403: [T]he probative value is strong because the other crimes would show how the relationships between [certain] alleged co-conspirators developed and their motives for acting, within the relevant time frame. The danger of unfair prejudice is fairly low because, except perhaps for the [excluded] Gopaul hostage taking, the other crimes evidence “adds no emotional or other pejorative emphasis not already introduced by the evidence” of the charged offense. Straker, 567 F.Supp.2d at 177-79 (emphasis added) (quoting United States v. Lawson, 410 F.3d 735, 742 (D.C.Cir.2005)); see also United States v. Cheng, No. 97-1016, 1997 WL 738588, at *1 (2d Cir. Nov. 21, 1997) (<HOLDING>). The Court reached the same conclusion for the

A: holding that the rule 403 balancing favored admissibility where the uncharged kidnapping was not more sensational or inflammatory than the charged crimes while tending to show how the relationships formed among the conspirators
B: holding that evidence of uncharged crimes was improper on rebuttal since none of the defendants made any general denial of wrongdoing which might have justified rebuttal in the form of evidence of uncharged crimes
C: holding there is no unfair prejudice when the prior act is no more sensational or disturbing than the evidence admitted directly supporting the crimes with which the defendant was charged
D: holding that uncharged sexual acts committed upon the same victim are admissible to show the conduct of the defendant toward the victim and to corroborate the evidence of the offense charged in the indictment
A.