in the last video we talked about the first part of the definition of relevance now let's look at the second part of the definition Part B of federal rule of evidence 401 and Part B of 401 says that the fact must be of consequence in determining the action it must be of consequence so for evidence to be relevant it can't just have a tendency to make any fact more or less probable the fact has to be of consequence it has to be related to the cause of action in other words whatever fact the evidence is trying to prove or disprove has to actually matter to somebody who's trying to decide the case if it doesn't matter it isn't relevant so uh I've left up a couple of drawings from the previous video so we can so we can keep using them as examples all right so let's say that in our bank robbery trial one of the parties wants to offer evidence that say uh say the defendant owns Six cats all right so here's my artist's rendition of cats and and uh the prosecution wants to introduce evidence that the defendant owns Six cats all right well that might tend to show that he's more of a cat person than a dog person but but it doesn't matter at all to whether he might have robbed the bank right it's not a fact that's of consequence in determining the actions so pretty clearly this is a fact that's just not relevant all right now on the other hand both the hospital record and the testimony about the white car those relate to whether the defendant might have been near the scene of the crime and of course whether he was there is a fact of consequence because it relates to whether he actually might have been the one who committed the robbery uh and then there's the bit uh the evidence about the witness being legally blind well whether the witness is legally blind that's a fact of consequence too because it relates to whether the getaway vehicle really was a white car and and that in turn relates to whether the defendant might have been the robber now of course whether the witness is legally blind that's only a fact of consequence if the witness first testifies that she saw a white car if she hasn't testified that she saw something well then it doesn't matter whether she's legally blind but if the prosecution introduces her testimony you know that U that she saw something right that she saw a white car if she if the prosecution introduces her testimony about what she saw well then whether she's even able to see that becomes fair game it becomes a fact of consequence in that case we say that the prosecution has opened the door it has opened the door to evidence about the witness's ability to see oops not open to opened the door all right um now what we need to realize about all this of consequence stuff uh we have to realize that whether a fact is of consequence it depends on the case right we have to do a caseby casee determination all right so what is this caseby case determination uh going to depend on well um one of the things it might depend on is the elements of the claim what are the elements of the claim in that case so for example if we were trying to determine whether a defendant is guilty of a general intent crime a general intent crime well then then whether the whether the defendant had specific intent that's not a fact of consequence because specific intent is not an element of a general intent crime okay so in our case-by casee determination we have to understand what the elements of the claim actually are understanding the elements of the claim is going to be very very important here um next are there any affirmative defenses all right so let's use a different example here let's say that we have a case about a contract for a sale of land well for a contract case right for a contract for a sale of land the statute of frauds applies so whether there was anything in writing that's going to be a fact of consequence but in our robbery example here whether or not there was a writing of any kind that that just doesn't matter okay so uh that's not going to be something that's relevant next has uh has one side opened the door has one side opened the door to evidence about certain things and we've already talked about an example of this okay so all of these things will dictate whether a particular fact is of consequence in that case so to figure out whether a fact is of consequence in a particular case we need to think about whether the fact would actually matter to the outcome of that case all right now before we end this video uh just two wrinkles in this rule of evidence that I want to point out all right and let's write them down I'll just call them wrinkles and there are two of them well we should start with number one okay the first wrinkle here the first one is that whether or not the parties dispute the truth of some fact that actually has no effect on whether evidence about that fact is relevant so here's what I mean even if one side concedes if it admits that a particular fact is true that doesn't mean that evidence about that fact is not relevant all right so say for example that the defendant um say that defendant in our bank robbery case all right let's say he concedes that he was in debt and so he did have a possible motive to commit the crime well that doesn't mean that any evidence about the defendant's debt is irrelevant you might think the evidence is unnecessary since the defendant already admitted that he was in debt but unnecessary does not mean irrelevant and actually the prosecution might have a very good reason for still wanting to introduce that evidence after all I mean it's one thing to admit that you're in debt and need money but a lot of people are in debt and we don't really assume that they're therefore going to go out and rob a bank but if there's evidence that the defendant owed a million dollars in gambling debts and he owed those debts to uh some very scary loone sharks who threatened to break his kneecaps if he didn't pay them well that paints a very different picture doesn't it right okay but regardless the point is this evidence is not irrelevant just because it relates to something that's been conceded all right so con ConEd fact the fact that something is conceded doesn't matter the fact that well the fact that a fact is conceded it doesn't matter whether evidence about that fact um it's not going to affect whether evidence about that fact is relevant all right so that's the first wrinkle the second wrinkle is this sometimes a piece of evidence can possibly be relevant for multiple purposes and that's important to know let's write that down multiple purposes even if the evidence ends up being inadmissible for one purpose it might be admissible for another purpose okay so uh a piece of evidence might be relevant for multiple purposes and one of those purposes might end up uh being inadmissible the evidence might be inadmissible for that purpose but it might still be admissible for another purpose okay so we need to understand that there may be multiple purposes in Play here's an example and as we're going to learn in some later videos evidence that a defendant has done something bad in the past okay that he's committed some wrong or some crime in the past that evidence usually cannot be used to try to prove that he committed some other wrong later uh and there are some exceptions to this but but in general The Rules of Evidence don't allow it and that that's probably a good thing because who hasn't done something wrong in the past right and if the fact that you've done something wrong in the past can be used to prove that you therefore did some other bad thing later well then we'd all be in trouble okay so let's say that in our bank robbery case the prosecution tries to introduce evidence that uh that that the defendant had been involved in some underground illegal gambling ring all right so he was uh he was a gambling guy okay so here are some cards here just to show that he was a gambling guy okay so king queen Jack all right so that that's a pretty bad drawing but you get the idea okay so he he was a gambling guy and and if the prosecution were to try to introduce evidence that he had done some illegal gambling in the past well then the defendant would probably object to that evidence and he you know the defendant would say hey you can't use evidence of my past wrongdoings to try to prove that I did something wrong here I mean okay so so I did some illegal gambling in the past that doesn't mean I'm a bank robber right and actually the defendant would be right the defendant would be right just because you've done some illegal gambling in the past that doesn't mean that you're a bank robber but if the prosecutor is clever he or she can point out that the evidence is actually relevant for multiple purposes it isn't just relevant to show that the defendant is you know generally a shady criminal type I mean we already said that that's not admissible that uh it's not admissible as evidence that he committed the robbery but um it's also relevant for another thing right it also supports the prosecutions theory that he had a lot of gambling debt and so he had a motive to commit the robbery okay so so you see the the evidence can sometimes prove more than just one fact and even if the evidence is inadmissible for one purpose it might be admissible for another purpose so we need to ask ourselves what is the evidence being offered to prove right that's what we have to to always be asking ourselves when we're trying to determine whether a piece of evidence is relevant and as I said before a smart lawyer who wants to introduce a piece of evidence will always be thinking okay if the other side objects to my evidence and says that it's inadmissible to try to prove something is it possible that the evidence might be admissible for some other purpose right to try to prove some other fact okay so let's review for evidence to be relevant it can't just have a tendency to make any fact more or less probable the fact has to be of consequence it has to actually matter to the case and whether a fact matters is a case-by case determination we have to uh we have to look at things like the elements of the claim whether there are any applicable defenses and whether the other side has opened the door to evidence about certain things and whether a fact is conceded or admitted by one side that that doesn't make evidence about that fact irrelevant the other side can still choose to introduce evidence about the fact um as long as the fact is of consequence of course and an Evidence can be relevant for multiple purposes so even if the evidence is inadmissible for one purpose it might be admissible for another purpose and a smart lawyer will always be thinking about all the possible different ways in which a piece of evidence might be relevant