Corroborating evidence is evidence that tends to support a proposition that is already supported by some evidence. For example, W, a witness, testifies that she saw X drive his automobile into a green car. Y, another witness, testifies that when he examined X's car later that day he noticed green paint on its fender.
For more information on this type of reasoning see casuistry.
These are followed in experimental design. They were codified by Francis Bacon, and developed further by John Stuart Mill and consist of controlling several variables in turn to establish which variables are causally connected. These principles are widely used intuitively in various kinds of proofs, demonstrations and investigations, in addition to being fundamental to experimental design.
The corroboratingevidence need not be sufficient standing alone to sustain the conviction, but it must, independent from that of the accomplice, tend to a substantial degree to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime.
The corroboratingevidence may be circumstantial so long as it is substantial; evidence that merely raises a suspicion of guilt is insufficient to corroborate an accomplice's testimony.
It is unnecessary that the evidence be sufficient to sustain the conviction, but the evidence must, independent from that of the accomplice, tend to a substantial degree to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime.
Feeds |
Contact