Relevance under FRE 402 and 401: Probative Value, Materiality, and Admissibility

Rule 402: Relevance and Admissibility

• Relevance as the gatekeeper: The Federal Rules of Evidence serve to gatekeep information jurors hear; a central function is deciding what is relevant. Rule 402 states: relevant evidence is admissible; irrelevant evidence is not admissible.
• Presumptive admissibility when relevant: If information is relevant, there’s a good chance it’s admissible, though other considerations may apply before a final ruling.
• Important nuance: Rule 402 does not itself define what counts as relevant; that is the job of Rule 401.

Rule 401: What Is Relevant?

• Definition of relevance (from Rule 401): Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without that evidence, and that fact is of consequence in determining the action.

• Two elements of relevance (names you’ll hear):

  • Probative value: The tendency of the evidence to prove or disprove a fact, thereby making the existence of that fact more or less likely than it would be without the evidence.
  • Materiality: The fact that the evidence helps determine the outcome of the action; the fact must be of consequence to the case.

• Why both elements matter:

  • An item can be probative (it tends to prove/disprove something) but not material (the fact it proves is not important to the case).
  • Conversely, a fact can be material (affect the outcome) but not probative (it doesn’t actually tend to prove/disprove anything relevant).

• Examples to illustrate probative vs material:

  • Car color in a negligence case: The color of the party’s car is probably not material because it’s unlikely to determine the outcome.
  • Traffic light color at the time of the accident: Very likely material because whether a red light or green light was run directly affects liability.
  • General point: Information must be both probative and material to be relevant and admissible.

• How materiality is determined:

  • Materiality is determined by substantive law, the facts of the case, and the theories of the parties.
  • Depending on a party’s theory, certain facts may or may not matter: for example,
  • If one theory is that the defendant was drunk, proving the speed limit might matter or not;
  • If the theory is that the defendant was exceeding the speed limit, knowing the speed limit matters more.

• Summary takeaway:

  • For information to be admissible, it must be both probative and material. If it is neither, it’s not relevant.
  • Even when relevant, the decision to admit also depends on other factors not fully covered in this segment.

Memory aid reference

• Slide 80 shows a visual representation of “relevant = probative + material,” a helpful mnemonic if you find it engaging.

Practical example: A planning to kill B (hypothetical)

• Question: Is evidence that A had a plan to kill B relevant in a case against A for the murder of B?

• Is it probative? Yes:

  • A plan to kill B makes it more likely that A killed B than a person with no plan to kill B, so it tends to prove a relevant fact (that A may be the murderer).

• Is it material? Yes:

  • The central question is who killed B; evidence that A planned to kill B directly relates to that central issue and thus is material.

• Admissibility expectation:

  • Since the evidence is both probative and material, prosecutors would almost certainly seek to admit it as a way to show A was the murderer.

• But does this prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

  • Not by itself. The standard for conviction in a criminal case is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
  • The standard for admissibility of individual pieces of evidence is much lower: relevance. An item need only move the likelihood of guilt or innocence even slightly to be admissible.
  • It is only when all admissible evidence is considered together that the trier of fact determines whether the defendant’s guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

• Key distinction reiterated:

  • Admissibility (Rule 402/401): a piece of evidence is allowed if it is relevant (probative and material).
  • Verdict standard (beyond a reasonable doubt): applied to the cumulative body of evidence, not to any single piece in isolation.

• Anticipated next steps:

  • The discussion moves to Problem 1.1 to apply these concepts to a concrete scenario.

Core takeaways

• Relevance requires two elements: probative value and materiality.
• Rule 402 makes relevant evidence admissible (subject to other rules), while irrelevant evidence is excluded.
• An item being probative does not guarantee it’s admissible; it must also be material to the case.
• Materiality depends on the substantive law, facts, and theories of the case; what matters can change based on theories.
• A piece of evidence need not be a “smoking gun” to be admissible; even incremental increases in likelihood can be enough for admissibility when viewed with the total evidence.
• There is a fundamental distinction between admissibility (a lower threshold) and proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (the ultimate standard for conviction.