What does it mean if evidence is deemed "improper" in court?

When evidence is deemed "improper" in court, it primarily indicates that the evidence is irrelevant or prejudicial to the case. Relevant evidence must directly relate to the facts being litigated and assist in proving or disproving a material fact within the case. If evidence is categorized as irrelevant, it means it does not contribute any meaningful information that relates to the legal issues at hand.

Furthermore, if evidence is considered prejudicial, it may risk inflaming the jury's emotions or leading them to make a decision based on bias instead of the facts. Courts strive to ensure that the evidence presented adheres to standards that promote fairness and justice, thus protecting the integrity of the legal process. This is why evidence deemed improper often cannot be admitted; it can cloud the issues and affect a juror's judgment inappropriately.

While factors such as illegal gathering, complexity, or duplication errors may also lead to various evidentiary issues, they do not capture the broad definition of "improper" evidence as effectively as a lack of relevance or potential for prejudice. Therefore, the focus is primarily on how the evidence impacts the case's fairness and relevance to the issues being tried.