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Your email address will not be published.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

    Colleen was great to deal with and communication was easy.

    Read more

    Graham Eyres

  • google
    5.0/5.0

    Colleen represented both my daughter and myself in a car accident case. It was a tricky and very involved case with many detail oriented issues to deal with. She handled everything with confidence and grace and supported us through what were some ver...

    Read more

    Rhonda Brouder

  • google
    5.0/5.0

    I’m a college student in the Boston area who suffered a pedestrian personal injury in December of 2022. Thankfully I was put into contact with Feinberg & Alban PC and I worked closely with Robert and Perry Feinberg who treated me with respect and f...

    Read more

    Anne O'Leary

  • google
    5.0/5.0

    Alexis Cahill was great, professional, and was open for me to contact on any questions I may have had during the process. Feinberg & Alban PC's services were nice as well, and I'd recommend them due to the transparency, what they were able to negotia...

    Read more

    Branden B.

  • google
    5.0/5.0

    My mom had a great experience with Feinberg as her attorney, after she fell near her house, and he took her under his wing. Mr. Feinberg was helpful, very organized and kind. He helped my mom a lot, very happy with results

    Read more

    Jane sungurov

See all reviews
Awards & Affiliations
Contact us

Quick Contact Form

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.