What can be said about evidence accepted in court?

Evidence that is accepted in court must meet specific legal standards of relevance and admissibility. This means that the evidence presented must have a direct relationship to the issue at hand in the case, assisting in establishing or disproving a fact that is critical to the outcome. Relevance is a key component in determining admissibility, as it ensures that the evidence contributes meaningfully to the case rather than being extraneous or prejudicial.

Understanding this criterion ensures the integrity of the legal process, as it prevents the introduction of evidence that could confuse the issues or mislead the jury. By adhering to these standards, the court maintains a balanced consideration of the evidence, allowing only what is useful and pertinent to the case.

The other options do not reflect the principles governing the admissibility of evidence in court. For instance, not all evidence is automatically admissible; there are various categories of evidence that may be restricted—for example, hearsay or irrelevant evidence. Moreover, it is not necessary for all evidence to be presented by expert witnesses; lay testimony can also be admissible. Lastly, hearsay evidence typically faces strict scrutiny and is commonly inadmissible unless it qualifies for an exception under the rules of evidence.