Which two characteristics accurately describe good evidence that can be introduced in court?

Good evidence that can be introduced in court is characterized by its relevance and credibility. Relevance is critical because evidence must directly relate to the case at hand and help prove or disprove a fact that is in dispute. If evidence is not relevant, it will usually be deemed inadmissible, as it could confuse the jury or distract from the issues they need to address.

Credibility, on the other hand, pertains to the trustworthiness of the evidence and its source. Evidence must come from a reliable source and be demonstrated to be accurate, authentic, and complete. If the evidence lacks credibility, it may be dismissed or given less weight by the court, as the judge or jury may question its validity.

While timeliness and safety are important considerations in the context of collecting and presenting evidence, they do not specifically define whether evidence can be deemed acceptable in court. Timeliness refers to the timing of evidence collection, while safety addresses procedural concerns, neither of which directly influence the admissibility based on the core legal standards of relevance and credibility.