Professor Crump's analysis runs the full traverse from academic theorizing to practical observation. I will attempt to follow him over the same course, addressing three questions among the congeries that he raises. First, is it true that all evidence satisfies the minimalist definition of relevance? Second, should evidentiary codes include a tighter definition of relevance? Third, how should we assess lawyers' use of evidence that, loosely speaking, is irrelevant?
Friedman, Richard D. "Irrelevance, Minimal Relevance, and Meta-Relevance (Response to David Crump)." Hous. L. Rev. 34, no. 1 (1997): 55-71.