Search Site
Menu

Relevant Evidence

Although all evidence introduced by a lawyer must be considered “relevant evidence” before it can be admitted, many lawyers today would nevertheless struggle to give an adequate legal definition of the word “relevancy”. According to the Advisory Committee’s notes in drafting Rule 401 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the proper definition is in the form of a question, which is “whether [the] item of evidence, when tested by the processes of legal reasoning, possesses sufficient probative value to justify receiving it in evidence”. The Advisory Committee further noted that this question must be satisfied by testing whether or not the evidence would tend to make the existence of a consequential fact of the case “more or less probable”. The Committee described the standard of probability as simply anything that made the fact “more or less probable than it would be without the evidence”. The Committee went on to cite the legal authority on evidence, McCormick, who stated: “A brick is not a wall”, meaning the evidence just has to contribute in some way to the matter for which it is being introduced.

This of course led to a second problem, though, which is that of conditional relevancy. What if the evidence’s contribution of probability towards one fact is contingent on some other fact? Rule 104(b), on preliminary questions of the court, considers this to be a question for the jury to decide. A judge would pose the question to the jury as “[evidence in dispute] may only be considered if you find the existence of [this other fact] to be true”. That kind of legal charge to the jury invokes the concept which had been discussed in a previous blog on the need for foundational proof.

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Feinberg & Alban, P.C. fervently protects your rights
  • The Boston firm of Feinberg & Alban, P.C. specializes its practice in the area of personal injury.

    The attorneys serve the entire state of Massachusetts in addition to affiliating with lawyers in other states to handle cases outside of Massachusetts.

  • $7.7 Million Award for Feinberg & Alban Client in Personal Injury Trial

    Boston Attorneys Win Highest Injury Verdict in Massachusetts in 2011 & 2012.

Client Reviews
  • google
    5.0/5.0

    Wish I could give higher than a 5 for this review. From the start the dedication to detail, care and skill that was applied to my case was outstanding. Robert Feinberg is exceptional at representing his clients. His depth & breadth of experience ma...

    Read more

    Rose M

  • google
    5.0/5.0

    After researching online, hiring Attorney Colleen Santora was the wisest decision I made. She represented me in my personal injury auto accident case. I sustained lingering post-concussive injuries and pain. Throughout a four year process, Colleen...

    Read more

    Diane DeMarco

  • google
    5.0/5.0

    Feinberg & Alban did a stellar job representing me at a time when my accident and a busy life didn't leave me any capacity to deal with the logistics of a lawsuit. From across the country, the firm (Ms. Colleen Santora, in particular) handled every a...

    Read more

    Trevor Zierhut

  • google
    5.0/5.0

    I was in a car accident recently that put me in the hospital and having Perry Feinberg from Feinberg & Alban was the best decision I ever made, with having so many choices for representation in these situations. The level of professionalism was incre...

    Read more

    John Stenis

  • google
    5.0/5.0

    I can't say enough about this law firm, and its commitment to its clients. Robert & Colleen took a personal interest in my case, which took several unexpected and frankly wild twists and turns along a very long road. They stuck with it, with me, even...

    Read more

    Wu tang Is for the children

See all reviews
Awards & Affiliations
Contact us

Quick Contact Form