Top Law Schools

I'm trying to figure out where/when to discuss relevance under 104(b), 401, and 403 in an analysis. I would think at the beginning of the analysis, but I think relevance also comes into play when you're going through the hearsay analysis. Is it right that even if you determine a statement is not hearsay, it could still be barred under 403 or 104(b) due to lack of relevance, etc.?

wormhole wrote:I'm trying to figure out where/when to discuss relevance under 104(b), 401, and 403 in an analysis. I would think at the beginning of the analysis, but I think relevance also comes into play when you're going through the hearsay analysis. Is it right that even if you determine a statement is not hearsay, it could still be barred under 403 or 104(b) due to lack of relevance, etc.?

Yes, I believe relevance is the basic FRE requirement to admit a piece of evidence. Everything must be relevant to be admitted, but the standard is incredibly lenient. It seems like a threshold question, so you could answer it first, quickly. I would do balancing after you determine relevance.

Everything must be relevant to be admitted, but relevance is low a bar that I wouldn't spend much time on the analysis.

Both of the above are credit; how a piece of evidence is relevant will dictate the remainder of your analysis.

Except that while relevance is often not a big issue, it can be, so don't breeze through it too quickly..