What is the general rule regarding admissibility of evidence?

The general rule regarding the admissibility of evidence is that all relevant evidence is admissible, subject to exclusionary rules. This principle reflects the foundational concept in the law of evidence that relevance is a key determinant in deciding what information can be introduced in court. Relevant evidence serves to make a fact in issue more or less probable, which is central to the court's assessment of a case.

However, this admissibility is tempered by various exclusionary rules, which may arise from statutory provisions or common law principles. These rules can exclude evidence for various reasons, such as concerns over unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or hearsay. For instance, while relevant, certain types of evidence may be deemed inadmissible if they fail to meet these legal standards designed to protect the integrity of the judicial process.

The other options present misunderstandings of the rules governing the admissibility of evidence. The assertion that all relevant evidence is inadmissible contradicts the foundational principles of evidence law. Similarly, the notion that only expert witnesses can provide admissible evidence narrows the scope too severely, disregarding the extensive category of lay testimony and non-expert evidence that can also hold probative value. Lastly, the requirement that all evidence must be written is overly restrictive,