The examples and perspective in this articlemay not represent aworldwide view of the subject. You mayimprove this article, discuss the issue on thetalk page, orcreate a new article, as appropriate.(December 2010) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Admissible evidence, in acourt oflaw, is anytestimonial,documentary, or tangibleevidence that may be introduced to afactfinder—usually ajudge orjury—to establish or to bolster a point put forth by a party to the proceeding. For evidence to be admissible, it must berelevant and "not excluded by the rules of evidence",^[1] which generally means that it must not be unfairlyprejudicial, 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 theUnited States and, to an extent,Australia) proscribe theprosecution from exploiting evidenceobtained in violation ofconstitutional law, thereby rendering relevant evidence inadmissible. Thisrule of evidence is called theexclusionary rule. In the United States, this was effectuated federally in 1914 under theSupreme Court caseWeeks v. United States and incorporated against the states in 1961 in the caseMapp v. Ohio. Both of these cases involved law enforcement conductingwarrantless searches of the petitioners' homes, with incriminating evidence being described inside them.Consciousness of guilt is admissible evidence.

For evidence to be admissible, it must tend to prove or disprove some fact at issue in the proceeding.^[2] 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.

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 ofwitness testimony, the party that introduces the evidence mustlay 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 thechain 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 caseDaubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc..^[3] The Court laid out four non-exclusive factors that trial courts may consider when evaluating scientific expert reliability: (1) whetherscientific 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.^[3]Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael later extended theDaubert analysis to include all expert testimony.^[4] It bears an effect on the verdict of the court.

• Evidence law

• Articles with short description
• Short description is different from Wikidata
• Articles with limited geographic scope from December 2010