This article may need to be rewritten to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. You can help. The talk page may contain suggestions.(February 2019)
Corroborating evidence, also referred to as corroboration, is a type of evidence in lawful command.
Types and uses
Corroborating evidence tends to support a proposition that is already supported by some initial evidence, therefore confirming the proposition. For example, W, a witness, testifies that she saw X drive his automobile into a green car. Meanwhile, Y, another witness, corroborates the proposition by testifying that when he examined X's car, later that day, he noticed green paint on its fender. There can also be corroborating evidence related to a certain source, such as what makes an author think a certain way due to the evidence that was supplied by witnesses or objects.[1]
These methods 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.
In law, corroboration refers to the requirement in some jurisdictions, such as in Scots law, that any evidence adduced be backed up by at least one other source (see Corroboration in Scots law).
An example of corroboration
Defendant says, "It was like what he/she (a witness) said but...". This is Corroborative evidence from the defendant that the evidence the witness gave is true and correct.
Corroboration is not needed in certain instances. For example, there are certain statutory exceptions. In the Education (Scotland) Act, it is only necessary to produce a register as proof of lack of attendance. No further evidence is needed.
