Which is not a requirement for evidence to be admissible in court?

For evidence to be deemed admissible in court, it must meet several criteria, which include relevance, not violating exclusionary rules, and probative value. Relevance ensures that the evidence is related to the case and can help prove a fact that is in question. A violation of exclusionary rules would render evidence inadmissible, as these rules are in place to protect the rights of individuals and ensure fair legal proceedings. Probative value relates to the ability of the evidence to contribute to the proof of a fact in the case.

Subjectivity, on the other hand, does not constitute a requirement for admissibility. In fact, admissible evidence is typically expected to be objective, based on verifiable facts and data rather than opinions or personal interpretations. Thus, the presence of subjectivity does not help establish the admissibility of evidence in a court setting, making it the correct choice for what is not a requirement.