In the instant case the trial Judge reviewed as possible items of corroboration such evidence as a tear and a semen stain on the complainant’s panties; some bruises observed on the person of the complainant; dirt on the back of her clothing; and her dishevelled appearance. Initially he properly told the jury that they could not consider any of these items as corroboration as they failed to meet the requirements set out in Rex v. Baskerville, supra. His actual words were: “It’s dependent on her own testimony, and it doesn’t show the accused did it either.”
Get a full legal research memo!
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexsei.com.