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Your email address will not be published.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 Santora Has been amazing throughout this whole process. I am 100% satisfied with how she has been there and represented me.

    Read more

    Nicholas Lugo

  • google
    5.0/5.0

    I worked with Perry Feinberg, as my personal injury attorney for an auto accident, Perry was very responsive, and available to answer all my questions. They are good at communicating with you and keep you informed. I’m finally able to put this acc...

    Read more

    Veronica Pleitez

  • google
    5.0/5.0

    Some of the best lawyers I have ever had very caring and friendly they helped me and my family tremendously, I would 100 percent recommend them and not look any further they will get the job done.

    Read more

    Brandon Welliver

  • google
    5.0/5.0

    Colleen Santora and Robert Feinberg at Feinberg and Alban treated my husband and I like family. Their concern for us felt personal and genuine. Colleen and Rob always kept on the details of my case fighting for me and guiding me along during a stress...

    Read more

    Marchant

  • google
    5.0/5.0

    Colleen was excellent to work with- great communication from start to finish. Highly recommend!

    Read more

    Paige Duane

See all reviews
Awards & Affiliations
Contact us

Quick Contact Form