What do you mean my evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and not excluded by the constitution

Answer 1

In legal terms, when we say "evidence is admissible," it means that the evidence can be properly introduced in a court of law during a trial or hearing. The admissibility of evidence is contingent on several factors:

1. **Relevance**: Evidence must be pertinent to the matter at hand. It should have a direct bearing on the case and help in proving or disproving a point in question.

2. **Not Excluded by the Constitution**: Evidence must not violate constitutional protections, such as those outlined in the Fourth Amendment (which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures), the Fifth Amendment (which guarantees the right against self-incrimination), and the Sixth Amendment (which ensures the right to a fair trial). If evidence is obtained in a way that infringes upon these constitutional rights, it may be deemed inadmissible.

3. **Rules of Evidence**: There are also specific legal procedures and rules, such as the Federal Rules of Evidence in the United States, which dictate how evidence must be treated and presented. These rules cover aspects like hearsay, authentication, and the balancing of probative value versus prejudicial effect.

### Key Points:

- **Relevance**: Evidence must be logically related to the facts of the case.
- **Constitutional Exclusion**: Evidence must not be obtained or presented in a manner that violates constitutional rights.
- **Compliance with Rules of Evidence**: Evidence must adhere to established legal standards and procedures.

For instance, if a piece of evidence was acquired through unlawful means such as an unauthorized search, it would likely be excluded from the trial because it breaches constitutional requirements, despite its relevance to the case.

### Practical Example:

If the police obtained a confession from a suspect without reading them their Miranda rights (a requirement under the Fifth Amendment), that confession would likely be inadmissible in court. Even though the confession is relevant to proving the suspect’s guilt, its admission would violate constitutional protections.

In summary, for evidence to be admissible, it must be both relevant to the issue at hand and obtained in a manner that does not violate constitutional protections. These principles ensure that the legal process is fair and just.