Circular Corroboration

XVI. The State’s Evidence Does Not Corroborate Itself Independently

The prosecution will argue that each weak item strengthens the others. But evidence does not independently corroborate another item when both depend upon the same source.

• Twiggs attributes the messages to Mr. Robinson.
• The messages supposedly corroborate Twiggs.
• Twiggs identifies the note.
• The note supposedly corroborates the messages.
• Twiggs explains the Dremel.
• The inscriptions supposedly corroborate Twiggs.
• Twiggs describes Mr. Robinson’s movements.
• Those descriptions supposedly corroborate the alleged confession.
• The alleged confession is then used to identify the otherwise unidentified rooftop figure.

That is not a set of independent evidentiary streams. It is one stream repeatedly routed through Twiggs. The Court must ask what evidence exists without first assuming Twiggs’s complete reliability.

• An unidentified person on surveillance.
• A rifle associated with Mr. Robinson.
• An inconclusive firearms comparison.
• DNA that cannot establish activity or timing.
• Mixed DNA involving Twiggs on associated material.
• Latent prints excluding Mr. Robinson.
• A photographed note without the original.
• Hearsay from absent parents.
• Hearsay and a written account from an absent family friend.
• And an immunized witness shown on video without live defense cross-examination.

That is not the overwhelming case the State has portrayed.