An opposing party’s litigation posture in an Illinois divorce hearing or trial can tell you a lot about what they are actually concerned with. It is common for a party to continue to harp on one issue throughout the hearing. This is annoying not just to you, but to the judge. The judge is trying to polite and fair. You, however, are the adverse party. You may need to be fair but you do not need to be polite. Simply object upon the third time you hear about the same issue that the proposed evidence is “cumulative”. Cumulative evidence is evidence “tending to prove the same thing.” Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) “Cumulative evidence is additional evidence of the same kind bearing upon the same point and it is not error to receive cumulative evidence otherwise admissible.” People v. Nahas, 292 NE 2d 466 – Ill: Appellate Court, 3rd Dist. 1973 “To say that new evidence is “cumulative” of evidence previously presented is simply to state the conclusion that, had the new evidence been introduced at trial, it would not have changed the result, because it added nothing to what was already before the [finder of fact]”Ostendorf v. International Harvester Co., 433 NE 2d 253 – Ill: Supreme Court 1982 Exclusion of cumulative evidence is not prejudicial to a party’s case. Zuelsdorf v. Montgomery Ward & Company, Inc., 64 Ill. App. 3d 408, 415 (1978) Illinois courts have discretion to deny the presentment of cumulative evidence. Illinois courts can even deny an entire witness if their testimony was presumed to be cumulative. “This discretion [to exclude cumulative evidence] includes limiting the number of… witnesses.” Dillon v. Evanston Hosp., 771 NE 2d 357 – Ill: Supreme Court 2002 The defense to an objection that evidence is cumulative is to point out that the evidence is, actually, corroborative. Corroborative evidence is “evidence that differs from but strengthens or confirms what other evidence shows (especially [when that evidence] needs support)” Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) Corroborative evidence, while common, can also be excluded as being cumulative. People v. Ortiz, 919 NE 2d 941 – Ill: Supreme Court 2009 The distinction between cumulative and non-cumulative evidence is whether it adds something new to the currently entered evidence. “Noncumulative evidence adds to the information that the fact finder heard at trial.” People v. Robinson, 181 NE 3d 37 – Ill: Supreme Court 2020 In a […]
