RULE 403 AUTHORIZES THE TRIAL JUDGE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE IF ITS PROBATIVE VALUE IS SUBSTANTIALLY OUTWEIGHED BY THE DANGER OF UNFAIR PREJUDICE. FLIGHT EVIDENCE TENDS TO BE HIGHLY PREJUDICIAL BUT ONLY MARGINALLY PROBATIVE, ESPECIALLY IF THERE WAS A LONG TIME INTERVAL BETWEEN THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME AND THE FLIGHT. BECAUSE THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF FLIGHT EVIDENCE IS BASED ON THE SPECIFIC FACTS IN THE CASE INVOLVED, PREDETERMINED RULES FOR ADMISSIBILITY WOULD BE UNDESIRABLE. HOWEVER, THE FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT, IN THE 1977 UNITED STATES V. MYERS CASE, DEVELOPED A USEFUL FRAMEWORK FOR DECIDING WHEN FLIGHT EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE. FOR ADMISSION, THE PROSECUTION WOULD NEED TO PROVIDE REASONABLE EVIDENCE SUPPORTING FOUR INFERENCES: FROM BEHAVIOR TO FLIGHT, FROM FLIGHT TO CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT, FROM CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT TO CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT OF THE CRIME CHARGED, AND FROM CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT OF THE CRIME CHARGED TO ACTUAL GUILT OF THE CRIME CHARGED. THIS TEST WOULD RESOLVE THE PROBLEMS OF LOW PROBATIVE VALUE AND HIGH RISK OF UNFAIR PREJUDICE AND WOULD THEREFORE ELIMINATE MISAPPLICATION OF RULE 403 BY TRIAL COURTS. THE MYERS STANDARD SHOULD BE ADOPTED BOTH FOR THESE REASONS AND TO FACILITATE APPELLATE REVIEW OF DECISIONS. ANALYSIS OF DECISIONS BY OTHER CIRCUIT COURTS, AND FOOTNOTES INCLUDING REFERENCES, ARE INCLUDED. (CFW)