For evidence to be admissible in court, it must be?

For evidence to be admissible in court, it must meet several criteria, which include being relevant, material, and competent. Here’s a breakdown of these key terms:

Relevance refers to the evidence's ability to relate to the facts of the case and assist in establishing a point that is significant to the outcome. Evidence that is directly relevant can help sway the jury's understanding or decisions regarding the case's pertinent issues.

Materiality pertains to the importance of the evidence in relation to the case. This means that the evidence should have significance in proving or disproving an aspect of the case. If evidence is not material, even if it is relevant, it may not assist in resolving the legal questions at hand.

Competence involves the legal ability of the evidence to be admitted in court, which can include considerations such as how the evidence was obtained. Evidence that is obtained illegally may be deemed incompetent and, therefore, inadmissible.

Since all these criteria must be satisfied for evidence to be admitted in court, the answer indicating that it must be "all of the above" captures the comprehensive requirements necessary for admissibility. Publicly known information, while potentially relevant, does not inherently qualify evidence for admissibility without meeting the other essential criteria of relevance, material