What is the definition of logical relevance in the context of evidence?

Logical relevance refers to the ability of evidence to make a fact at issue in a case more or less likely to be true. This concept is foundational in legal contexts, particularly in determining which pieces of evidence are permissible in court. When evidence is relevant, it has a direct bearing on the matter being adjudicated, thus assisting the trier of fact—whether a judge or jury—in making informed decisions.

In practice, for evidence to be deemed logically relevant, it must have a direct connection to the elements of the case. If evidence can sway the perception of a critical fact, it will typically be allowed, provided it meets other evidentiary standards like being not overly prejudicial or hearsay.

Other options do not capture this key aspect of relevance. Evidence that is written or recorded pertains to the format rather than its capacity to affect a fact's probability. Evidence that does not involve existing litigation is irrelevant to the question of how it connects to the facts of a specific case at hand. Similarly, while witness testimony can be relevant, it is not the defining characteristic of logical relevance itself, as relevance can arise from various types of evidence, not just oral or written accounts.