Want this question answered?
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 common law doctrine known as the "Ferreira Rule" allows for evidence from bloodhounds to be admissible in American courts. Bloodhound evidence is typically used in tracking and search operations to assist in identifying suspects or locating missing persons.
In a court of law the only evidence that can be admissible must be gotten legally.
no
Yes, palm prints can be admissible in court as evidence. Palm prints can be used to identify individuals just like fingerprints. The admissibility of palm print evidence will depend on the circumstances of the case and the rules of evidence in the jurisdiction.
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)