Which of the following statements would be considered admissible evidence?

The statement about Ed's breath smelling of alcohol and his clothes smelling of marijuana would be considered admissible evidence because it describes specific observations made regarding Ed's condition at a precise time. This type of tangible evidence can be grounded in factual, sensory experience, making it reliable in a legal context.

In legal proceedings, direct observations, particularly those that describe an individual's state in connection to alleged misconduct, are typically given significant weight. The specificity of the time (7:30 AM) and the nature of the evidence (breath and clothing odors) provide a clear context that can be corroborated or challenged through further evidence or witness testimony.

Other statements, while they may bear some relevance, do not hold the same level of evidential weight as the third option. For instance, the absence from work does not provide direct insights into Ed’s state at the time of the incident and lacks the immediacy and specificity that the third statement possesses. Reports about being under the influence might imply a condition but lack the concrete observations that can be directly verified. Lastly, witness reports, while potentially valuable, are still opinions and interpretations of behavior rather than straightforward, observable facts, making them less definitive as evidence.