Relevance and Materiality
by admin
by Prof. John W. Reed
The University of Michigan Law School
THE DIFFERENCE in theoretical meanings of relevance and materiality is simple to state: Relevance refers to the tendency in reason of offered fact A to prove fact B. If the existence of A1 makes the actuality of B more probable, then A is relevant to B. Materiality refers to the relationship between fact B and the issues in the case. If fact B has been placed in issue, by the pleadings or the pre-trial order or by consent of the parties, then evidence tending to establish the actuality of B (either directly or, through proof of A, circumstantially) is material.2 If establishment of A does not render B more probable, then A is irrelevant and evidence of A will be rejected. And if B is not in issue, then B is immaterial and evidence of B will be rejected. If A is relevant to B but B is immaterial, evidence of A will not be permitted because A is immaterial.
Of course, these terms can be manipulated by choice of definitions. For example, Rule 1(2) of the Uniform Rules of Evidence defines relevant evidence in terms of tendency to prove a material fact; and the rules do not elsewhere refer to materiality. Thus, in the case just posited of A relevant to an immaterial B, Rule 1(2) would make A irrelevant. This is slightly confusing because the term irrelevant so defined applies equally to the case of A irrelevant to a material B.
It must be conceded that this provision of the Uniform Rules is close to the usage of lawyers and judges, who, in practice, seldom attempt a clear distinction between relevance and materiality. Trial counsel objecting to the admission of evidence improper on either of these two grounds typically will characterize the proferred evidence as “irrelevant and immaterial.” Few lawyers have ever heard a judge respond, “Which?” But a lawyer may indeed be called on to explain to the court the logical failure he has in mind, and it behooves him, therefore, to distinguish between these principles in order that he may support his objection effectively. Even the Uniform Rules will not render this skill obsolete.
Most questions of materiality relate to an interpretation of the pleadings in the light of the substantive law; few are in the realm usually denoted by the term evidentiary. ##
Footnotes:
1 Although relevance is here stated in terms of increased probability, B may be a negative, and in that event the relevance concept will permit proof of a fact which renderes, colloquially, less probable the existence of a fact in issue.
2 Materiality is a term flexible enough to permit as within the issues disputes over credibility of witnesses and proof of miscellaneous environmental facts not really in issue but which may render a party’s presentation more understandable and persuasive.
The above article is culled from REGALADO, Remedial Law Compendium, Vol. II, Tenth Revised Ed., p. 1079. The image is from University of Michigan Law School website. All copyrighted materials above as used remain to be that of its owners and no trademark or copyright infringement or destructive exploitation is herewith intended in any form whatsoever other than use for discussion and academic purposes.
Comments
Thanks for this!
Nice post & nice blog. I love both.