Definition of Relevance
Relevance has two prongs, and both must be satisfied.
1. Definition of Relevance
“Evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.” Fed. R. Evid. 401.
- This standard is quite low. A piece of relevant evidence does not have to prove (or disprove) a fact conclusively. It merely needs to contribute to proving or disproving that fact.
- The key phrase in this rule is “any tendency.” That phrase reinforces the lenience of the standard.
- To be relevant, evidence must relate to a “fact of consequence.” Facts of consequence are facts that bear on resolution of a dispute.
- Facts of consequence may change over the course of a trial.
Evidence is relevant only if it satisfies both prongs: it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable, and that fact is a fact of consequence in determining the action.
Relevance has two prongs, and both must be satisfied.
- 1The probative-value prong: the evidence must have any tendency to make a fact more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.
- 2The materiality prong: the fact that the evidence bears on must be a fact of consequence in determining the action, meaning a fact that bears on the resolution of the dispute.
The probative-value standard is deliberately low. The evidence does not have to prove the fact by itself or conclusively; it only needs to move the needle even a little in one direction or the other.
For the materiality prong, a fact of consequence does not have to be a fact the parties are actively fighting over; it just has to matter to some issue the trier must decide. Importantly, what counts as a fact of consequence can shift as a trial unfolds, because the issues in play can change.
Relevance is only the threshold question. Even relevant evidence can later be excluded under other rules, but that is a separate inquiry. Here the only question is whether the evidence is relevant, and that turns solely on these two prongs.
Two prongs: any tendency (move the needle at all) + fact of consequence (matters to the dispute).
Low bar: contribute, do not conclude.
Relevant evidence nudges; it need not prove.
Consequence can shift: what matters can change as the trial moves.
A pedestrian sues a motorist for running a red light at an intersection. The pedestrian offers testimony from a witness who says the motorist's traffic light was green for cross-traffic moments before the crash.
Note what we did not do. We did not ask whether the testimony is enough to win, and we did not ask whether some other rule might keep it out. Those are different questions. Relevance asks only: does it move the needle on a fact that matters?
An option says the evidence must prove the fact conclusively, by itself, or without any further proof, or that it must settle the contested issue.
Recite the exact standard: any tendency to make a fact of consequence more or less probable. Evidence need only contribute to proving or disproving the fact, not establish it alone.An option requires the fact to be actively disputed or contested by the parties, or treats a conceded fact as automatically not of consequence.
A fact of consequence is one that bears on resolution of the dispute. It need not be contested; a conceded element can still be of consequence.An option decides relevance by weighing unfair prejudice against probative value or by importing another exclusionary rule.
Confine the inquiry to the two relevance prongs. Whether relevant evidence is ultimately admitted is a separate question outside the relevance test.An option fixes the set of facts of consequence as of the start of trial, or says a fact that was not an issue at the opening cannot be consequential.
Facts of consequence may change over the course of a trial. A fact can become consequential once a new issue or defense is raised.An option uses always, never, every, or any-as-absolute (for example, good character is always relevant, or every communication is relevant).
Distrust unqualified universals. Relevance always turns on whether this evidence has any tendency to make a fact of consequence more or less probable.a stem hands you a single piece of evidence and asks only whether it is relevant, without asking whether it should be admitted.
Look for language inviting you to weigh whether the evidence is strong enough, proves a point by itself, settles a dispute conclusively, or is worth the trouble; those invitations are usually traps, because relevance asks only whether the evidence has any tendency to make a fact of consequence more or less probable.
If an answer choice turns on prejudice, another exclusionary rule, or whether the fact is currently being argued over, it has likely left the relevance question.
Keep two questions in front of you: does this evidence move the needle on some fact at all, and is that fact one that bears on resolving the action.
A pedestrian sues a motorist, claiming the motorist ran a red light at an intersection. To help show the motorist faced a red light, the pedestrian offers testimony from a bystander who says the light for cross-traffic was green just before the collision. The motorist objects that this testimony, standing alone, does not prove the motorist's light was red, since several other things would also have to be shown.
Is the bystander's testimony relevant?
A homeowner sues a contractor for breaching a written remodeling agreement. To prove the parties had a binding deal, the homeowner offers the signed contract document. The contractor does not dispute that a contract existed and is willing to admit it, and argues that because the existence of the contract is not being contested, the document bears on nothing the parties are fighting about.
Is the signed contract document relevant?
A tenant sues a landlord, alleging the landlord set a fire in a vacant unit. The landlord had recently doubled the fire insurance on the building. The tenant offers proof of the increased insurance to suggest the landlord had a financial motive to burn the unit. The landlord responds that this evidence is unfairly damaging and would make the jury think poorly of the landlord.
On the question of relevance alone, is the increased-insurance evidence relevant?
A shopkeeper sues a supplier over a soured delivery of goods. At the start of trial, the only issue is whether the goods conformed to the order. Midway through, the supplier raises a new defense that the shopkeeper waited too long to complain. The shopkeeper then offers a dated email showing an early complaint. The supplier argues the email is irrelevant because, when the trial began, timing was not an issue in the case.
Is the dated email relevant?
A driver sues another driver for injuries from a rear-end collision. The only contested issue is how fast the rear driver was traveling at impact. To support the claim, the plaintiff offers evidence that the rear driver had, years earlier and in an unrelated city, received an award for community volunteering. The evidence has no bearing on the rear driver's speed or on any other issue the trier must decide in the case.
Is the volunteering-award evidence relevant?