Evidence Law Made Easy: Relevance

Relevance Defined. First, what exactly is relevance? Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make a fact that is important to the case more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. In other words, for evidence to be relevant, it has to help prove or disprove a fact that matters to the ultimate issue in the case. The key question is always - does this evidence have any bearing on making any material fact more or less likely? If the answer is yes, the evidence meets the test for legal relevance. Determining Relevance. So how do courts determine if a particular piece of evidence is legally relevant to the case? Well, it’s important to keep in mind that the standard for relevance is very low. The evidence doesn’t have to definitively prove a fact - it just has to alter the probability for or against that fact even a little bit. Courts look at both the evidence itself and the issues in the case. They ask - does this evidence have any logical relationship or connection to the facts we need to prove here? For example, if the dispute is about whether a defendant was driving recklessly, a video showing the driver texting would be relevant because it makes reckless driving more probable. Excluding Irrelevant Evidence. Okay, so now we know how courts determine if evidence is relevant. But what happens if evidence is found to be irrelevant? The basic rule is that irrelevant evidence will be excluded from the case and the jury cannot hear it. This helps to avoid jury confusion and wasted time on facts that just aren’t important. There are a couple steps to objecting to evidence as irrelevant. First, the attorney makes an objection such as "Objection, irrelevant!" Then the judge will ask the attorney to explain why the evidence is irrelevant. The attorney needs to show how the evidence has no relationship or bearing on any material facts in the case. If the judge agrees, the evidence will be excluded and the jury will not get to consider it. Pretty simple right?