From "Criminal Procedure & Constitutional Protections" (Second Edition) Non Testimonial Evidence: "Evidence that does not come from the mouth of a witness and may include conduct; physical evidence that may have the operative effect of proving guilt but has not been deemed to have the same effect as speech" Examples: Blood alcohol test, physical test to identify if a suspect is intoxicated. See case Schmerber v California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966)
Yes. Examples might be the results of drug lab or DNA tests. Evidence attempting to be introduced as 'non-testimonial' faces scrutiny and challenge to determine whether it is admissible, or not under the rules of "hearsay" evidence.
The US Supreme Court differentiated between "testimonial" and "non-testimonial" witness statements in Crawford v. Washington, (2004) and Davis v. Washington with Hammon v. Indiana, (2006). For more information on these cases, see Related Questions, below.
AA meetings can be admissible in court. If they are court ordered or relevant to an issue or evidence, then it usually is admissible.
Hearsay
Your mode of dress is not admissible in court. The evidence cries to be admissible, your honor!
The evidence was not admissible in court due to it having no relevance to the proceedings.
The bloodhound is the only animal whose evidence is admissible in a US court.
In a court of law the only evidence that can be admissible must be gotten legally.
no
In the UK if it is evidence to a crime, Oh yes.
Yes, from what I have seen on court TV shows. There is a lot of info in the headers that can make them reliable evidence.
Yes. If it is relevant to an issue and meets the other evidence rules, it is admissible.
A polygraph examination is admissible in court only by the stipulation (agreement) of both parties. This is true in all U.S. courts, not just Indiana. Polygraph evidence is seldom used in court.
No. They can be fooled which is why they are not admissible as evidence in a court of law (at least in the US)