Which statement about relevant facts is true?

• A. They are the same as evidence
• B. They have potential to help describe what occurred but are not necessarily evidence
• C. They must be corroborated by physical objects
• D. They are always admissible in court

Answer: (B)

Relevant facts are details that connect to what happened and help you understand the sequence of events and who was involved. They’re useful for describing how the incident unfolded, but they aren’t automatically evidence. A relevant fact may contribute to understanding the situation and could become evidence if admitted under the rules of admissibility, but not all relevant facts qualify as evidence or are admissible in court. For example, a witness saying someone was late to a meeting is a relevant fact about what occurred, and it helps describe the events, but it isn’t by itself physical evidence. It could be supported by other record or testimony to become evidence, depending on the rules. Other choices misstate the relationship between relevance and evidence or admissibility, such as asserting all relevant facts must be physical corroborated or that they are always admissible.