Trial attorneys often run into the phrase “relevant and material evidence.

” Just like there is a

difference between “salt” and “pepper” and between “hot and cold”, there is also a difference
between relevant evidence and material evidence. The difference is subtle. Evidence is material if it is
offered to prove or disprove a specific fact in issue. 

Thus, evidence is material if it relates to one of the particular elements in the case. For example, in a
driving while under the influence case, if evidence is being offered to show impairment, it is material. If
evidence is not material, the other party may object to the use of the evidence on grounds that it would
mislead the trier of fact. The evidence might also get the trier of fact into collateral issues and thereby
prove a distraction to the resolution of the real issues in the case. 

Immaterial evidence should be excluded. Some evidence may be admissible even if it does not bear
directly on an issue of fact in the case. For this to happen, there has to be a relationship shown to the
weight or credibility of the evidence. Thus, when a witness testifies their credibility, perception, memory
and narration or communication are all material even though they are not directly related to an issue of
fact.
 
Evidence is relevant as opposed to being material if it indicates a relationship between facts
that increases the probability of the existence of the other. It must tend to prove or disporve a material fact
in the case. Revelant evidence is viewed by its probative value. A trier of fact (judge or jury) determines
the sufficiency or weight of the given evidence. In order for evidence to meet the relevance threshold,
there must be merely some probative value. Relevant evidence used to prove or disprove an issue at trial
is considered to be material evidence. Irrelevant evidence is inadmissible. Not all material evidence is
relevant because although the evidence might deal with the particular subject matter, it lacks probative
value because it is dealing with a collateral issue unrelated to the elements of proof in a given case.
POSTED BY DECATO LAW OFFICE AT 7:13 AM

REACTIONS: 
 

EMAIL THISBLOGTHIS!SHARE TO TWITTERSHARE TO FACEBOOKSHARE TO PINTEREST

2 COMMENTS:

1.

UnknownJuly 8, 2013 at 2:53 AM

So... All relevant evidence is material, but not all material evidence is relevant? And all
relevant evidence is probative of an issue to be determined by the fact-finder? Put another
way, materiality is the more gross measure, of the two, of the value of a particular fact in
determining a factual issue. Thus there is a hierarchical r