0402

I think the answer is no. Each of these items has at least some minimal relevance.

The item that seems to be least relevant of the group is number 5, getting thrown out of Kilroy’s. But it tells us something negative about the defendant's character, so the prosecutor might offer it as tending to show that the defendant is a "bad guy," and bad guys are more likely to commit crimes than good guys.

Remember also that relevance is affected by what happens at the trial itself. If the eyewitness for the State is asked whether there was anything unusual about the robber's face and she says "No," then the defense might offer evidence of the fighting as circumstantial evidence that the defendant would probably have had visible cuts and bruises on his face at the time of the robbery, so that fact that the witness does not remember seeing any reduces the likelihood that the defendant was the robber.

Also of very little relevance is item number ten, his preferences in music. But I think the defense will offer all sorts of evidence of this sort to show the jury what kind of person the defendant is, with the ultimate aim of proving he is a "good guy," and good guys are less likely to commit crimes than bad guys.

Questions? E-mail tanford@indiana.edu and refer to 0402.

Step two. If all items of evidence are offered, which ones would an ethical lawyer object to? Where do you have grounds to make a legitimate objection? The answer will lie NOT in arguing logical relevance. Only minimal tendency to help prove an issue is needed. The answer will lie in arguing that the evidence concerns a matter that is "not of consequence" to the outcome of the case, i.e., is immaterial.

Look though the list and try to formulate objections that the items concern matters that are not of consequence to the lawsuit. When you have decided, click here .