🦅
Federal Evidence • Logical Relevance
EVID#003
Legal Definition
"Relevant evidence" means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Evidence may be relevant for more than one purpose.
Plain English Explanation
Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, any information or evidence that helps to prove something is true or not true is allowed to be used. This information can be used for more than one reason.
In other words, think of logical relevance in the law like piecing together a puzzle. Each piece of evidence is like a puzzle piece. If a piece makes it easier to see the big picture of the puzzle (the case), it's relevant. For example, in a car accident case, if there's evidence like a photo showing one car hitting another, this photo helps us understand better who may be at fault. The purpose of this rule is to filter out information that doesn't help in solving the puzzle. Imagine if we included pieces from a different puzzle – it would just cause confusion! So, logical relevance is about making sure only helpful, clear pieces are used to complete the picture of what happened in the case.
In other cards, we'll discuss what those other reasons are.
In other words, think of logical relevance in the law like piecing together a puzzle. Each piece of evidence is like a puzzle piece. If a piece makes it easier to see the big picture of the puzzle (the case), it's relevant. For example, in a car accident case, if there's evidence like a photo showing one car hitting another, this photo helps us understand better who may be at fault. The purpose of this rule is to filter out information that doesn't help in solving the puzzle. Imagine if we included pieces from a different puzzle – it would just cause confusion! So, logical relevance is about making sure only helpful, clear pieces are used to complete the picture of what happened in the case.
In other cards, we'll discuss what those other reasons are.
Hypothetical
Hypo 1: Bob is accused of stealing a toy from a toy store. The toy store has security cameras that recorded Bob walking around the store, and Bob is seen carrying the toy out of the store without paying for it. Result: The footage would be allowed to be used in the court case to help prove that Bob is guilty of stealing the toy.
Hypo 2: Bob is accused of stealing a toy from a toy store. He's arrested and put on trial. During the trial, the prosecution wants to show the jury a video of Bob playing with a toy at a friend's house a month before the alleged theft took place. Result: This video footage would not be considered "relevant evidence" because it does not have any tendency to make the existence of the fact that Bob stole the toy from the store more or less probable.
Hypo 3: Bob accuses Sam of stealing his watch. In court, a video is presented showing Sam far away from Bob's house at the time the watch was said to be stolen. Result: The video is relevant because it makes it less likely that Sam stole the watch, as he wasn't near the scene of the alleged theft.
Hypo 4: Sam sues Bob for causing a car accident. Sam presents a weather report showing that it was foggy on the day of the accident. Result: The weather report is relevant because it makes it more probable that poor visibility contributed to the accident, which is a key fact in the case.
Hypo 2: Bob is accused of stealing a toy from a toy store. He's arrested and put on trial. During the trial, the prosecution wants to show the jury a video of Bob playing with a toy at a friend's house a month before the alleged theft took place. Result: This video footage would not be considered "relevant evidence" because it does not have any tendency to make the existence of the fact that Bob stole the toy from the store more or less probable.
Hypo 3: Bob accuses Sam of stealing his watch. In court, a video is presented showing Sam far away from Bob's house at the time the watch was said to be stolen. Result: The video is relevant because it makes it less likely that Sam stole the watch, as he wasn't near the scene of the alleged theft.
Hypo 4: Sam sues Bob for causing a car accident. Sam presents a weather report showing that it was foggy on the day of the accident. Result: The weather report is relevant because it makes it more probable that poor visibility contributed to the accident, which is a key fact in the case.
Visual Aids
