An objection based on relevance or materiality would likely be considered an objection that evidence being introduced into the trial is immaterial or irrelevant to the matters at stake in the trial. The two terms, immaterial and irrelevant, are synonymous. An objection regarding immaterial or irrelevant evidence would likely be raised with regard to evidence if that evidence does not seem to have a logical connection to the case at hand.
For example, if, in a case regarding an individual having committed a parking violating, evidence is brought to bear which would instead prove that the defendant cheated on his or her spouse, then that evidence might be objected to as immaterial or irrelevant, unless the evidence proving the affair would also somehow prove the parking violation. Thus, immaterial or irrelevant evidence can only be determined based on the underlying law in the case in question.
An objection based on immaterial or irrelevant evidence is very much linked to a number of other potential objections which an attorney might make, as ultimately, immaterial or irrelevant evidence is often introduced into a trial in order to produce some kind of manipulation in terms of the jury.
For example, immaterial evidence might be evidence regarding an irrelevant criminal history of the defendant, which might still be used to predispose the jury against the defendant. This would actually be grounds for other, more specific objections as well, but it would also be considered immaterial or irrelevant evidence.
