For evidence to be admissible in court, which requirement is NOT necessary?

For evidence to be admissible in court, the requirement that it must be corroborated is not necessary. While corroboration can strengthen the credibility of evidence, it is not a fundamental prerequisite for admissibility.

The key criteria for admissible evidence typically include relevance, materiality, competency, and lawful acquisition. Evidence is considered relevant if it has the tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Materiality refers to the significance of the evidence in relation to the case, while competency addresses whether the evidence is trustworthy and can be considered by the court. Additionally, evidence must be collected lawfully to be admissible; that is, it cannot be obtained through illegal means which would violate a person's rights.

Corroboration, however, is generally related to the weight of evidence rather than its admissibility. It can enhance the reliability of a witness's testimony or a piece of evidence, but by itself, the absence of corroboration does not automatically render evidence inadmissible.