What are the two conditions that must be met for evidence to be considered relevant in a court of law?

For evidence to be considered relevant in a court of law, it must meet two essential conditions: it must be material and probative.

Materiality refers to the importance of the evidence in relation to the case at hand. This means that the evidence must have a legitimate connection to the facts of the case, aiding in the determination of a fact that is at issue in the trial. Without material evidence, the evidence does not contribute to supporting or undermining a claim.

Probative value, on the other hand, indicates that the evidence has the capability to prove something relevant to the case. This implies that the evidence must make a fact more or less probable than it would be without that evidence.

When evidence is both material and probative, it contributes meaningfully to the judicial process by helping to establish facts, clarify issues, or support arguments made by either party. Recognizing this standard is crucial for ensuring a fair trial, as only evidence that meets these requirements should be presented to a jury or judge.

The other options do not accurately represent the legal definitions and requirements for relevance in court. For instance, while truthfulness and legality are important aspects of evidence collection and admissibility, they do not define the relevance of evidence as clearly as the