Is a Confession Alone Enough to Convict a Defendant?

Some corroborating evidence must back up a confession, but states vary on the particulars of this rule.

By , Attorney
Defend your rights. We've helped 95 clients find attorneys today.

There was a problem with the submission. Please refresh the page and try again
Full Name is required
Email is required
Please add a valid Email
Phone Number is required
Please enter a valid Phone Number
Zip Code is required
Please add a valid Zip Code
Description is required
By clicking "Find a Lawyer", you agree to the Martindale-Nolo Texting Terms. Martindale-Nolo and up to 5 participating attorneys may contact you on the number you provided for marketing purposes, discuss available services, etc. Messages may be sent using pre-recorded messages, auto-dialer or other automated technology. You are not required to provide consent as a condition of service. Attorneys have the option, but are not required, to send text messages to you. You will receive up to 2 messages per week from Martindale-Nolo. Frequency from attorney may vary. Message and data rates may apply. Your number will be held in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

You should not send any sensitive or confidential information through this site. Any information sent through this site does not create an attorney-client relationship and may not be treated as privileged or confidential. The lawyer or law firm you are contacting is not required to, and may choose not to, accept you as a client. The Internet is not necessarily secure and emails sent through this site could be intercepted or read by third parties.

A general criminal law principle known as the corpus delicti rule provides that a confession, standing alone, isn't enough for a conviction. With its design of preventing wrongful convictions, the rule implicitly acknowledges the phenomenon of false confessions.

"Corpus delicti" translates to "body of the crime." The phrase refers to the requirement that there be some kind of evidence—apart from the defendant's statements—that establishes that someone committed a crime. In some states, the prosecution can't even present evidence of the defendant's confession (for example, by playing a recording of it) without this kind of corroboration.

Corroborating Evidence of the Crime

Though the corpus delicti rule sounds like significant protection for criminal defendants, it's relatively easy to satisfy. In general, any evidence that someone committed the crime in question will be enough—the evidence doesn't have to show that the defendant was the one to commit it. And in many places, the corroborating evidence needs only to slightly suggest that the crime was committed.

Example: In a state that follows the corpus delicti rule, Bubbles walks into the police station and asks to give a statement. He says that he just robbed someone of money at gunpoint. But Bubbles can't identify whom he robbed or say where the gun is. Nor does he have any money in his possession. The police have nothing to follow up on—they can't come up with any evidence apart from Bubbles's confession indicating that a robbery took place. As a result, Bubbles can't be convicted of robbery.

Corroborating Evidence of Reliability

Some jurisdictions don't follow the corpus delicti rule exactly. Instead, their courts tend to focus not on whether corroborating evidence shows that the crime occurred, but on whether the confession was trustworthy or reliable.

Example: In a 1987 federal case, a man named Kerley was convicted of failing to register in the armed forces. Kerley had a duty to register in 1980. Instead of registering, he sent several letters to the Selective Service System announcing his refusal to register and opposition to military action. Kerley argued on appeal that his conviction was due solely to the uncorroborated admissions in his letters. The appeals court upheld the conviction, saying that there was enough independent evidence to establish that his admissions were trustworthy. It pointed to the fact that Kerley "proudly volunteered" what amounted to his confession. The court also noted that the Selective Service had twice searched its files and failed to find any proof that Kerley had registered. (United States v. Kerley, 838 F.2d 932, 940 (7th Cir. 1988).)

DEFEND YOUR RIGHTS
Talk to a Defense attorney
We've helped 95 clients find attorneys today.
There was a problem with the submission. Please refresh the page and try again
Full Name is required
Email is required
Please add a valid Email
Phone Number is required
Please enter a valid Phone Number
Zip Code is required
Please add a valid Zip Code
Description is required
By clicking "Find a Lawyer", you agree to the Martindale-Nolo Texting Terms. Martindale-Nolo and up to 5 participating attorneys may contact you on the number you provided for marketing purposes, discuss available services, etc. Messages may be sent using pre-recorded messages, auto-dialer or other automated technology. You are not required to provide consent as a condition of service. Attorneys have the option, but are not required, to send text messages to you. You will receive up to 2 messages per week from Martindale-Nolo. Frequency from attorney may vary. Message and data rates may apply. Your number will be held in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

You should not send any sensitive or confidential information through this site. Any information sent through this site does not create an attorney-client relationship and may not be treated as privileged or confidential. The lawyer or law firm you are contacting is not required to, and may choose not to, accept you as a client. The Internet is not necessarily secure and emails sent through this site could be intercepted or read by third parties.

How It Works

  1. Briefly tell us about your case
  2. Provide your contact information
  3. Choose attorneys to contact you