Relevance in Evidence Essay Questions: Do You Always Have to Discuss It on the Bar Exam?
- Tommy Sangchompuphen
- 1 day ago
- 3 min read
If you’ve spent any time studying Evidence, you’ve probably internalized one core principle: Everything starts with relevance.
Relevance under the Federal Rules of Evidence is intentionally broad:
Rule 401: Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable and that fact is of consequence.
Rule 402: Relevant evidence is admissible unless a rule excludes it. Irrelevant evidence is not admissible.
Rule 403: Even relevant evidence can be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by dangers like unfair prejudice, confusion, or waste of time.
In other words, relevance is the gateway. If evidence isn't relevant, the evidentiary analysis ends. If it is relevant, the real fight usually begins.
So, in theory, relevance is always part of an evidentiary analysis.
This leads to a very practical question students ask all the time: "Do I need to discuss relevance in every Evidence essay question on the bar exam?"
When You Should Discuss Relevance
On the bar exam, especially on the Multistate Essay Examination, you have about 30 minutes to read the fact pattern, spot the issues, recall the rules, and write a coherent answer. Evidence questions are rarely simple. They often layer multiple issues, including hearsay, character evidence, impeachment, and privileges.
Even though relevance is always in the background, you should bring it into your written analysis when it actually matters.
✅ First, you should discuss relevance when the call of the question explicitly raises it.
Sometimes the bar examiners tell you exactly what to do. For example:
“Analyze whether each of these items of evidence is relevant and admissible at trial …” (2013 MEE question)
“Defense counsel’s motion raises the following objections to the evidence described above … Victim’s anticipated testimony that Defendant shot him because of a gang dispute is irrelevant.” (2022 MEE question)
When relevance is in the call of the question, it isn't optional. You need to address it directly.
✅ Second, you should also discuss relevance when the facts make it genuinely debatable.
Sometimes the connection between the evidence and the fact of consequence isn't obvious. That is your cue to explain why the evidence matters. If you skip it, you're leaving analysis points on the table.
✅ Third, you should discuss relevance when it is dispositive of the issue.
If the evidence doesn't meet the Rule 401 threshold, you must discuss relevance because it's dispositive. It resolves admissibility on its own. Explaining that shows the grader that you understand relevance as the gateway issue and know when to end your analysis.
✅ Fourth, you should discuss relevance when it is tied to another rule.
Certain rules assume relevance as part of their application. For example, a statement of an opposing party is admissible as non-hearsay, but it still must be relevant to the case. A brief reference to relevance can strengthen your analysis without taking much time.
When You Should Typically Not Discuss Relevance
Just as important as knowing when to include relevance is knowing when to leave it out.
🚫 If the call of the question limits the scope, follow it.
Bar examiners are often very precise. If they ask you to analyze a specific issue, they're signaling where the points are. In some cases, they go even further and remove relevance from the analysis entirely. For example, a 2025 MEE question instructed: “Assume that the report is relevant and not admissible as a business record.” In that situation, discussing relevance doesn't earn you points. It wastes time.
🚫 If the question directs you to other grounds only, stay in that lane.
For example, a 2020 MEE question stated: “The owner has objected to all the proffered evidence mentioned above on the grounds of hearsay.”
That instruction is clear. You're being asked to analyze hearsay. Spending time on relevance (except to the extent relevancy is a component of a hearsay exclusion or exception) takes away from the analysis that actually matters.
A Practical Approach for Exam Day
Relevance is always part of an evidentiary analysis, but it isn't always part of an essay response. On a 30-minute bar exam essay, knowing the difference is what counts.
When you read an Evidence question, take a brief pause before you start writing and ask: Is relevance actually in play here, or is the real issue somewhere else?
If relevance is clear and uncontested, you can usually move quickly past it or leave it out. If it is contested, foundational, or dispositive, address it directly.
That small decision can make your answer more focused, more efficient, and more effective.
