Which scenario represents when evidence is not logically relevant?

The scenario where evidence is not logically relevant is one that involves another time, event, or person not directly involved in the current case. Evidence is considered logically relevant if it has any tendency to make a fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. When evidence pertains to a different time, event, or person entirely unrelated to the issues at hand, it fails to meet the standard of relevance because it does not assist in establishing or disproving any facts that are at stake in the case. As a result, it does not contribute to the proceedings and can lead to confusion or distraction from the facts that actually matter.

In contrast, evidence involving witnesses from the same case, concerns issues directly related to the case, or that is referred to in a witness account remains pertinent to the matters being litigated, offering insights or corroboration that can assist in establishing the truth regarding the facts of the case. Thus, the focus on unrelated elements distinctly characterizes the situation where the evidence lacks logical relevance.