BASIC RELEVANCY

To understand relevancy, you have to understand how a case gets to trial in the first place.

1. Something happens that causes harm, e.g., someone steals your grandmother's checkbook and cleans out her checking account to the tune of $5000 but she didn't notice it for 2 weeks because she rarely writes checks and had no idea there was that much money in the account.

2. Things happen that affect whether it ever turns into a dispute. Granny may do nothing because she assumes it was her drug-addict grandson who stole the money.

3. If it does become a dispute, the nature of the dispute will first be defined by the participants. Does Granny see this as a business issue and want the bank to pay her back. Does she see it as a criminal issue and want the thief arrested. Do the police tell her it's a civil matter and walk away? Does her daughter tell her she should write nasty things about the bank on Angie's List?

4. Granny and her posse decide whether the dispute should be resolved outside the legal system. Granny and the bank may negotiate. Granny's son may get his Glock and go shoot the thief.

5. If the dispute goes to the legal system, lawyers get involved in how it is defined. The DA might charge theft, forgery, or conspiracy. The civil lawyer might characterize a claim against the bank as a breach of contract or as negligence, and may file either in state court or federal court. He may seek punitive damages or not. The defense lawyer may admit the allegations or deny them and claim Granny wrote the checks herself but just can't remember doing so because she has dementia. The bank may or may not raise a defense of contributory negligence because Granny did not safeguard her checkbook, and may or may not try to invoke a contract clause that says the bank must be notified of stolen checks within 10 days.

6. The case goes through discovery, including Rule 36 requests for admission. Granny's lawyer may or may not ask the bank's lawyer to admit the signatures on the stolen checks were forgeries. The bank's lawyer may or may not admit it.

Look at Rule 401. Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to help prove or disprove a fact that "is of consequence in determining the action." All that has happened up to trial will determine what is of consequence at trial.
                
The first problem is problem 4A. 

Step one: Look at the list of 10 items. Is there anything on the list so irrelevant that it would be unethical for either lawyer to offer it in the first place? Remember that only minimal probative value is necessary. When you have decided, click here to continue.