For evidence to be admissible at a trial, it must be both relevant and what?

For evidence to be admissible at a trial, it must be both relevant and material. Relevance refers to the ability of the evidence to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without that evidence, ensuring that it ties directly to an issue under consideration in the case. Materiality, on the other hand, refers to the significance of the evidence in relation to the case - it must have actual bearing on the case and not just be tangentially related or of minimal importance.

In legal contexts, evidence that is merely relevant but not material may not provide sufficient support or challenge to any points in the case, thereby not contributing meaningfully to the judicial process. Thus, for evidence to have an impact in court, it needs to meet both the criteria of relevance and materiality, ensuring it is pertinent and significant to the case at hand.