In the grand scheme of trial, evidence is needed to convince jurors to give a verdict of guilt or not guilt. Evidence can take several forms such as physical evidence, substantial evidence. Regardless of what type evidence is presented must be relevant to the case to be admissible. “Relevance refers to any material fact or evidence having a tendency to make the existence of a matter at issue more probable than it would be without said fact (probative value)”(Britz, 2008, p. 344).
In this paper, an examination of the legal standard of relevance evidence will be discussed. Furthermore, the rules of inclusion and exclusion of evidence based on the wording of the rules will be scrutinized. In the final section, examples of evidence will be presented that could be both relevant and irrelevant for certain crime.
As mentioned earlier relevance evidence refers to any material fact or evidence that make the existence of a issue more probable than it would without facts. When evidence has been offered and a determination has been made to include it due to passing constitutional test and did not violated collection procedures, the supporter of the evidence will have to demonstrate the materiality, competency, and relevancy of same(Britz, 2008, p.273). The relevancy of an item evaluates the materiality of the item and its probative value.
The judge will conduct an evaluation evidence competency however, the jury can decide doing deliberation that a specific item or witness lacks credibility, in so doing refusing to consider it. In order to have the full understanding of evidence one need to understand the definition of relevance according to Federal Rules of Evidence. There are several reason evidence may be found to be legally inept or undeserving of consideration in the jury’s estimation (Britz, 2008, p. 273).
When looking at relevant evidence and whether it acceptable during trial, it must meet the questioned asked by (Rule 401) of the F.R.E. According to Rule 401(Test for Relevance Evidence) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the test relevance depends on depends on two factors. The first question ask do the Evidence have any tendency to make a fact more or less probable in the absent of the evidence and, do the fact of consequence in determining the action relate to the case(Federal Rules of Evidence).
The court could possibly exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence. When relevant evidence is questioned for some type unwarranted chauvinism it is covered under the F.R.E. Rule 403(Federal Rules of Evidence).
The Rule 403 of the F.R.E., states that relevant evidence may be excluded if...