This summary is not the rule. The rule text controls.
If you're involved in a court case, not all evidence gets to come in. To be allowed, evidence has to meet a simple two-part test.
First, the evidence has to make some fact more likely or less likely to be true. It doesn't have to prove anything by itself. It just needs to move the needle a little bit in one direction or the other.
Second, that fact actually has to matter to the case. It needs to be something the judge or jury is trying to figure out in order to decide the outcome. Evidence about something that has nothing to do with the real issues in the case won't count, even if it's interesting or true.
Together, these two parts set a fairly low bar. Evidence doesn't need to be powerful or convincing to be considered relevant. It just needs to connect to a fact that matters and make that fact a bit more or less likely.
