Which type of evidence is usually more reliable in court?

Physical evidence is generally considered more reliable in court because it consists of tangible items that can be objectively analyzed and verified. This type of evidence includes things like fingerprints, DNA samples, ballistic evidence, or any other material that can be directly linked to a crime. The objective nature of physical evidence means that it can be tested through scientific methods, which helps to establish facts in a case more definitively than subjective accounts.

Testimonial evidence, while valuable, is based on personal accounts and recollections, which can be influenced by many factors such as memory distortion, bias, or the witnesses' perceptions. This aspect makes it less reliable in comparison to physical evidence.

Leading evidence and categorical evidence are less commonly referenced in legal contexts. Leading evidence pertains to questions that suggest their own answers during testimony, but it does not refer to a type of evidence itself, and categorical evidence typically is not explicitly recognized as a legal category in most court proceedings.

Thus, physical evidence holds a critical advantage in court due to its capacity for objective validation and the scientific credibility it brings to legal arguments.