Evidence is defined as prejudicial if it (1) unnecessarily arouses emotions; (2) interferes with rational truth-seeking by confusing or misleading jurors; (3) upsets the balance of the adversary system by unduly surprising an adversary or interfering with the impartiality of the jury; (4) wastes time by delay or by the repetition of evidence already presented; and (5) undermines public policy or the political interests of the State. A balancing test is often used to determine what to do with prejudicial evidence. The article proposes a political choice model for use in deciding whether to admit relevant, but prejudicial evidence. 259 footnotes.