Is all relevant evidence admissible in court? Why or why not?

The correct answer is that not all relevant evidence is admissible in court due to potential prejudicial effects. This principle is rooted in the Rules of Evidence, which allow for the exclusion of relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, or causing undue delay.

For example, while evidence that is relevant to a case may help prove or disprove a fact, it can also introduce biases or emotional responses that could unfairly sway the jury's judgment. The court must carefully assess each piece of evidence to ensure that it does not harm the integrity of the proceedings.

The other options suggest misunderstandings of legal principles. Some imply that all evidence is beneficial if relevant, or that all evidence must be accompanied by witness testimony, which is not a requirement for admissibility. The admissibility of evidence is a nuanced matter that weighs both relevance and potential impacts on the jury's decision-making.