It depends what country you are in I guess, but in the USA there is a piece of legislation known as the Daubert criteria - Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993) - which must be fulfilled if evidence is to be admissable in court. The criteria are:
(1) whether the methods upon which the testimony is based are centered upon a testable hypothesis;
(2) the known or potential rate of error associated with the method;
(3) whether the method has been subject to peer review; and
(4) whether the method is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community
Admissible as evidence
Your mode of dress is not admissible in court. The evidence cries to be admissible, your honor!
Hearsay
The evidence was not admissible in court due to it having no relevance to the proceedings.
AA meetings can be admissible in court. If they are court ordered or relevant to an issue or evidence, then it usually is admissible.
Yes, text messages are generally admissible as evidence in court, as long as they meet the requirements for authenticity and relevance.
In a court of law the only evidence that can be admissible must be gotten legally.
Yes, a recorded phone call can be admissible in court as evidence, but it must meet certain legal requirements to be considered admissible, such as being relevant to the case and obtained legally.
Yes, video recordings can be admissible as evidence in court, as long as they meet certain criteria such as relevance, authenticity, and reliability.
Yes, cell phone video can be admissible as evidence in court if it meets the necessary legal requirements and is authenticated properly.
Yes, video evidence is generally admissible in court as long as it meets certain criteria, such as being relevant, authentic, and not unfairly prejudicial.
Not at all. If a document is not admissible in evidence, than the question of admissibality not arise...