Admissible evidence, in a court of law, is any

testimonial In promotion and advertising, a testimonial or show consists of a person's written or spoken statement extolling the virtue of a product. The term "testimonial" most commonly applies to the sales-pitches attributed to ordinary citizens, where ...

, documentary, or tangible

evidence Evidence for a proposition is what supports this proposition. It is usually understood as an indication that the supported proposition is true. What role evidence plays and how it is conceived varies from field to field. In epistemology, evidenc ...

that may be introduced to a factfinder—usually a

judge A judge is a person who presides over court proceedings, either alone or as a part of a panel of judges. A judge hears all the witnesses and any other evidence presented by the barristers or solicitors of the case, assesses the credibility an ...

or jury—to establish or to bolster a point put forth by a party to the proceeding. For evidence to be admissible, it must be

relevant Relevant is something directly related, connected or pertinent to a topic; it may also mean something that is current. Relevant may also refer to: * Relevant operator, a concept in physics, see renormalization group * Relevant, Ain, a commune ...

and "not excluded by the rules of evidence", which generally means that it must not be unfairly prejudicial, and it must have some indicia of reliability. The general rule in evidence is that all relevant evidence is admissible and all irrelevant evidence is inadmissible, though some countries (such as the United States and, to an extent,

Australia Australia, officially the Commonwealth of Australia, is a Sovereign state, sovereign country comprising the mainland of the Australia (continent), Australian continent, the island of Tasmania, and numerous List of islands of Australia, sma ...

) proscribe the prosecution from exploiting evidence obtained in violation of constitutional law, thereby rendering relevant evidence inadmissible. This rule of evidence is called the exclusionary rule. In the United States this was effectuated federally in 1914 under the

Supreme Court A supreme court is the highest court within the hierarchy of courts in most legal jurisdictions. Other descriptions for such courts include court of last resort, apex court, and high (or final) court of appeal. Broadly speaking, the decisions of ...

case ''

Weeks v. United States ''Weeks v. United States'', 232 U.S. 383 (1914), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that the warrantless seizure of items from a private residence constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S ...

'' and incorporated against the states in 1961 in the case ''

Mapp v. Ohio ''Mapp v. Ohio'', 367 U.S. 643 (1961), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the exclusionary rule, which prevents prosecutors from using Evidence (law), evidence in co ...

'', both of which involving law enforcement conducting warrantless searches of the petitioners' homes, with incriminating evidence being described inside them.

Criteria

Relevance

For evidence to be admissible, it must tend to prove or disprove some fact at issue in the proceeding. However, if the utility of this evidence is outweighed by its tendency to cause the fact finder to disapprove of the party it is introduced against for some unrelated reason, it is not admissible. Furthermore, certain public-policy considerations bar the admission of otherwise relevant evidence.

Reliability

For evidence to be admissible enough to be admitted, the party proffering the evidence must be able to show that the source of the evidence makes it so. If evidence is in the form of witness testimony, the party that introduces the evidence must lay the groundwork for the witness's credibility and knowledge. Hearsay is generally barred for its lack of reliability. If the evidence is documentary, the party proffering the evidence must be able to show that it is authentic, and must be able to demonstrate the chain of custody from the original author to the present holder. The trial judge performs a "gatekeeping" role in excluding unreliable testimony. The United States Supreme Court first addressed the reliability requirement for experts in the landmark case ''

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ''Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'', 509 U.S. 579 (1993), is a United States Supreme Court case determining the standard for admitting expert testimony in federal courts. In ''Daubert'', the Court held that the enactment of the Fede ...

''.''

'' 509 U.S. 579 (1993). The Court laid out four non-exclusive factors that trial courts may consider when evaluating scientific expert reliability: (1) whether scientific evidence has been tested and the methodology with which it has been tested; (2) whether the evidence has been subjected to peer review or publication; (3) whether a potential rate of error is known; and (4) whether the evidence is generally accepted in the scientific community. ''

Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael ''Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael'', 526 U.S. 137 (1999), is a United States Supreme Court case that applied the ''Daubert'' standard to expert testimony from non-scientists. Background Patrick Carmichael was driving his minivan on July 6, 1993, ...

'' later extended the ''Daubert'' analysis to include all expert testimony.''

'', 526 U.S. 137 (1999). It bears an effect on the verdict of the court.

Issues with admissibility of evidence in non-democratic regimes

In some non-democratic legal systems, the courts effectively function as organs of those in power, and the rules of evidence are designed to favor their interests.

References

{{DEFAULTSORT:Admissible Evidence Evidence law