Description

Please summarize the modern position on the requirement of corroborative testimony in a rape case, and how this is different than early common law. At ahead of schedule regular "law" a "victim" confirmation was deficient proof to meet the weight of demonstrating the components of assault including absence of assent. The "victim" affirmation must be upheld by extra supportive confirmation. Present day "wards" have gotten rid of the supportive confirmation necessity and permit the "Trier" of truth to focus the components of "assault" or absence of assent in view of the "victim" affirmation alone.