What prevents evidence from being considered if it is irrelevant or unduly prejudicial?

The rules of evidence are the framework that governs what information can be used in legal proceedings. These rules ensure that only relevant evidence, which contributes to proving or disproving an aspect of the case, is considered by the court. Irrelevant evidence can distract from the key issues or mislead the jury, while evidence that is unduly prejudicial could create bias against a party without a fair consideration of the facts.

In the context of law, relevance is a crucial aspect of admissibility. If evidence does not logically relate to the facts of the case or add value to the legal arguments being made, it may be excluded based on these rules. Additionally, even if evidence is relevant, it can still be barred if its potential to cause unfair prejudice outweighs its probative value. This is to ensure that the judicial process remains fair and just, allowing focus on facts rather than emotions or irrelevant details.

The other choices, such as rules of engagement, code of conduct, and judicial policy, do not directly apply to the standards for evaluating the admissibility of evidence in legal proceedings.