There are various concepts in law that are hard to wrap ones head around, usually because they dont make intuitive sense or involve arcane or arbitrary, and imprecise, rules. Such as various definitions of insanity (MNaughtens rule and others, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insanity_defense ), The Rule in Shellys Case (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_in_Shelley%27s_Case), The Rule Against Perpetuities (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_against_perpetuities), the concept of negotiability and its various wrinkles and applications, the hearsay doctrine (and the distinction between what is non-hearsay and what is an exception to hearsay), the Battle of the Forms rules, and so on. One that I found interesting in law school was the distinction, in the law of evidence, between materiality and relevance. Usually most people use those terms as rough synonyms--thats not relevant or thats not material. But there is a subtle distinction, as Wikipedia summarizes: An item of evidence is said to be material if it has some logical connection to a fact of consequence to the outcome of a case. Materiality, along with probative value, is one of the two characteristics which makes a given item of evidence relevant. This is largely dependent upon the elements of the cause of action the plaintiff seeks to prove, or that the prosecutor must prove in a criminal case in order to secure a conviction. Which issues must be factually proven are therefore a product of the underlying substantive law. As rule 401 of the FRE puts it: Rule 401. Test for Relevant Evidence 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. As the committee notes indicate, the word materiality was left out of this formulation: The rule uses the phrase “fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action” to describe the kind of fact to which proof may properly be directed. The language is that of California Evidence Code §210; it has the advantage of avoiding the loosely used and ambiguous word “material.” Tentative Recommendation and a Study Relating to the Uniform Rules of Evidence (Art. I. General Provisions), Cal. Law Revision Commn, Rep., Rec. & Studies, 10–11 (1964). The fact to be proved may be ultimate, intermediate, or evidentiary; it matters not, so long as it is of consequence in the determination of the action. Cf. Uniform Rule 1(2) which requires that the evidence relate to a “material” fact. law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_401 Or as explained here Until the Federal Rules of Evidence were restyled in 2011, Rule 401 defined relevance as follows: 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 probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. This definition incorporates the requirement that evidence be both material (of consequence to the determination of the action) and have probative value (having any tendency to make the existence of any [material] fact...more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence).[2] The restyled Rule 401, however, separates these traditional concepts in order to make the rule clearer and more easily understood.[3] The amended language essentially rewrites the rule as a test, rather than a definition, for 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.[4] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevance_(law) But offhand, its hard to think of good examples to illustrate the distinction--e.g. some fact that is material (has to do with the underlying cause of action) but not probative (and thus not relevant).
Posted on: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 12:45:29 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015