relevant evidence

Relevance is the most fundamental corner stone of evidence. It is required that the evidence be relevant to be accepted. The evidence should have some logical linkage between itself and the issue that it’s presented to prove or disapprove. It’s not a must that the connection be so strong to an extent that an evidence item can approve or disapprove the fact alone. It is normally good enough provided that the evidence piece has got a connection in a series of proof. Evidence is used to refer to observations or facts that can be presented to support an affirmation.

Evidence must be relevant for it to have a chance of admissibility however, not every relevant evidence is accepted. Some judges can expel relevant evidence due to other evidence rules. Example: some relevant evidence can unfairly stimulate the feelings of the jury. In such a case, the judge should balance the significance of the evidence with the risks involved in an unjust appeal to emotions. In case the judge establishes that the risks involved with unfair emotional appeal outweighs the relevance substantially, the evidence will not be accepted. In case the relevance outweighs the risks then it is accepted.

Relevance requires the following;

• Legal relevance. This is used to mean that the evidence must be acceptable and that it cannot be applied to manifest an inadmissible thing. Example: if a contract based suit on fraud is taken to court, oral evidence would not have any legal relevance.
• Logical relevance. This simply means that the evidence must try to prove or disprove something.

For the evidence to be relevant it should;

1. It has to make a fact more likely or probable than it was in the absence of the evidence.
2. The evidence must be capable of making a major impact.
3. The evidence should also narrow down to the necessary parts in proving the fact at hand. This is because some judges may reject evidence if it is found to be irrelevant and having too much information outside the question.

If evidence is found to be irrelevant it is not used in decision making even though it might have been technically relevant. Example: Mental instability or incapacity of a person.

The following are some of the reasons that can lead to evidence being rejected:

• Time wastage while presenting the evidence.
• Confusion of issues in the evidence.
• Excessive and unnecessary evidence.
• Deceiving the jury.
• Unjust prejudice.

DEMONSTRATIONS AND ANIMATIONS.

This refers to visual aids that assist the jury in understanding some complex issues although they are not evidence. It is required that the jury to clearly note that these demonstrations are not evidence themselves. The judge is required to:

1. Only permit demonstrations that are in line with the testimony that it is supporting.
2. Advice the jury against accepting these demonstrations as facts but as lifelike images used in giving evidence.
3. Advice the jury against accepting demonstrations as evidence as they are only to aid in the act of presenting evidence.