Explain the difference between cumulative evidence and corroborative evidence and give an example of each

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Cumulative evidence merely repeats evidence previously introduced at the trial. Corroborative evidence supports the testimony of a previous witness by verifying details. The judge has the right to restrict cumulative evidence. For example, assume that 10 people witnessed a robbery from the same vantage point and told the police that they saw the same thing. Since the additional witnesses are providing no new evidence, the judge will deny an attorney's request to call all of them to the stand. Several will be allowed to testify but it is up to the judge's discretion exactly how many.
Corroborative evidence provides additional facts to substantiate evidence that has already been admitted. It is admissible because it provides new details that will help the jury decide whether or not to believe the testimony of a prior witness. For example, a witness testified that she saw a short man with dark hair in a green shirt assault the victim at 10:00 pm. Another witness testified that he saw a short man in a green shirt leave the location at 10:02 . This corroborates the testimony of the first witness by giving the same description and indicates that the man was probably at the location at the time of the crime. The testimony is not cumulative. The first witness testified that she saw the assault, the second saw the man leave the location.