bs
A scholarly response. Well, good sir, I shall retort. The point is to exclude evidence that creates “unfair” prejudice. All evidence is prejudicial. That’s the point of evidence, to prove or disprove a material fact. Get enough facts against you and you lose. But if the evidence has a tendency to do more, or something other, than prove or disprove a material fact, it is subject to challenge.
Will the judge exclude her testimony? Probably not. If the prosecution wanted to put on three, four, or five people with substantially similar testimony to hers? Then some would likely be excluded. The prosecutor would then choose the more effective testimony to get their point across.