The investigator shall collect _________ of an accused person's guilt in order to negate the defenses claims.

• A. Opinion
• B. Direct Evidence
• C. Corroborating Evidence
• D. Hearsay

Answer: (C)

Corroborating evidence is evidence that reinforces a claim by providing independent confirmation from a second source. In trying to counter a defense, investigators seek corroboration to show that the key facts line up across multiple, independent observations or testimonies. This strengthens the prosecution’s narrative and makes defenses like alibi or denial less credible because the same facts are supported by more than one source. Examples include an additional witness who independently confirms the timeline, physical traces that link the suspect to the scene, or surveillance that supports a witness’s account.

Direct evidence directly proves a fact (like witnessing the act) and hearsay is typically not admissible to prove guilt unless an exception applies, while opinion is a subjective judgment rather than factual proof. Corroborating evidence, by providing independent support, is the strongest way to negate defense claims by adding credibility to the prosecution’s version of events.