the last two
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.
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.
No, a signed confession does not have to be notarized for it to be admissible in court. The signature itself is typically sufficient to establish the authenticity of the confession.
In some jurisdictions, a dying declaration is admissible in court even if the person does not die. The testimony can be admitted if the declarant is unavailable to testify due to being physically or mentally incapacitated. However, the reliability and credibility of the statement would still be assessed by the court.
Voice prints, also known as voice authentication or speaker recognition, can be admissible in court as evidence if certain criteria are met. This includes using reliable methods to generate voice prints and having experts testify to their accuracy and reliability. However, the decision to admit voice prints as evidence ultimately rests with the judge overseeing the case.
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, video evidence is generally admissible in court as long as it meets certain criteria, such as being relevant, authentic, and not unfairly prejudicial.
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, cell phone pictures can be admissible as evidence in court if they are relevant to the case and meet the necessary legal requirements for authentication.
Yes, phone recordings can be admissible as evidence in court if they meet certain criteria, such as being relevant to the case, accurately recorded, and legally obtained.
Yes. If it is relevant to an issue and meets the other evidence rules, it is admissible.
Yes, text messages are generally admissible as evidence in civil court proceedings, as long as they are relevant to the case and can be authenticated to prove their accuracy and origin.
yes, as long as it's relevant to the case.
Yes, a cell phone can be used as evidence in court if it contains relevant information that is admissible in a legal proceeding.
Your mode of dress is not admissible in court. The evidence cries to be admissible, your honor!
No
Hearsay