Article IV — Relevance and Its Limits
Rule 401: Test for Relevant Evidence
What is Test for Relevant Evidence?
Rule 401 sets the baseline test for whether evidence can even be considered by a court. It asks two simple questions: (1) Does this evidence make some fact more or less likely to be true? and (2) Does that fact actually matter in this case?
Source: Fed. R. Evid. 401
Rule Text
Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence, and the fact is of consequence in determining the action. Relevance requires two components: probative value (the evidence must make some fact more or less likely) and materiality (the fact must matter to the case).
Plain English Explanation
Rule 401 sets the baseline test for whether evidence can even be considered by a court. It asks two simple questions: (1) Does this evidence make some fact more or less likely to be true? and (2) Does that fact actually matter in this case?
The threshold for relevance is intentionally very low. Evidence does not need to prove a fact conclusively or even make it highly probable. It just needs to move the needle even slightly. A brick is not a wall, but it is part of one — each piece of relevant evidence contributes something to the overall picture.
In practice, almost any evidence that has some logical connection to a disputed issue in the case will satisfy Rule 401. The real gatekeeping happens under Rule 403, which allows exclusion of relevant evidence on other grounds. Think of Rule 401 as the first and easiest hurdle evidence must clear.
Key Points
- 1Relevance has two components: probative value and materiality
- 2The threshold is very low — evidence need only make a fact slightly more or less probable
- 3Relevance is determined by logic and experience, not by any fixed legal formula
- 4Even if evidence is relevant under 401, it can still be excluded under other rules (e.g., 403)
Common Exam Issues
- Distinguishing relevance (401) from the 403 balancing test — evidence can be relevant but still excluded
- Identifying whether the fact the evidence is offered to prove is actually 'of consequence' in the litigation
- Conditional relevance problems where the evidence is only relevant if another fact is established (Rule 104(b))
Landmark Cases
- Knapp v. State
- Sherrod v. Berry
- United States v. James
Article IV — Relevance and Its Limits
This rule is part of Article IV — Relevance and Its Limits of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
Browse All FRE RulesMaster Evidence Law with AI-Powered Study Tools
20+ tools to help you study smarter. 3-day free trial, then $9.99/month.
Start Free Trial