The phrase "admitted evidence" is correct and usable in written English.
It is typically used in legal contexts to refer to evidence that has been accepted by a court for consideration in a case.
Example: "The judge ruled that the documents presented by the prosecution were admissible, thus they became admitted evidence in the trial."
Alternatives: "accepted evidence" or "approved evidence".
In 1969, he successfully appeared in a then rare case of a man convicted of murder when the court of appeal admitted evidence to show the original pathologist might have erred.
At the appeal, his lawyers argued that the trial judge should not have admitted evidence of a 2008 assault conviction which involved spitting, and was wrong not to discharge the jury after a newspaper published an article accompanied by a photo of the singer spitting.
Admitted evidence included photographs of protestors butchering a sea turtle for dinner, prejudicial hearsay statements from two individuals not present during the incident, discussion of incidents that occurred on a tugboat after the plaintiffs had already been shot or detained, and evidence of four unrelated kidnappings.
Does that make it harder to admit evidence obtained by torture?
Daubert admits evidence based on science that has been tested, peer-reviewed and published.
Courts admit evidence of dubious quality at trial, and send defendants to prison -- or to death -- on the basis of it.
At the centre of her appeal will be the judge's refusal to admit evidence from Oliver's father, from whom his mother, Audrey Amaral, is divorced.
"The state, by admitting evidence unlawfully seized, serves to encourage disobedience to the federal Constitution which it is bound to uphold," Justice Tom C. Clark wrote for the court.
Then, on the eve of his trial in February 2009, prosecutors appealed to admit evidence that has been disallowed because of Mr. Anderson's refusal to testify.
The panel said the trial court had the right to admit evidence that showed "Clarkson did not die by her own hand".
"To admit evidence of the DOJ investigation for any purpose would be unduly prejudicial," they wrote in the filing, "because the jury might incorrectly assume defendants have admitted to or been found guilty of antitrust violations".
