Corroboration with confessions?

• A. An uncorroborated confession by itself is not enough to support a conviction
• B. A confession alone is sufficient for conviction
• C. Confessions require two witnesses
• D. Confessions are always inadmissible

Answer: (A)

The key idea is that a confession, even when voluntary, cannot be the sole basis for convicting someone. Confessions are powerful but can be unreliable if obtained under pressure or misinterpreted, so the law requires independent evidence to corroborate what the accused says. This independent evidence helps confirm the essential facts and the elements of the crime beyond reasonable doubt, reducing the risk of wrongful conviction.

In practice, corroboration can come from other testimony, physical or documentary evidence, or any independent facts that link the defendant to the crime and establish the elements. Because of this, an uncorroborated confession by itself is not enough to support a conviction.

The other ideas—that a confession alone is sufficient, that confessions require two witnesses, or that confessions are always inadmissible—don’t fit because confessions, when voluntary, are admissible, but they are not automatically enough to convict without corroboration; there is no universal two-witness requirement for confessions, and they are not categorically inadmissible.