NCJ Number
215331
Journal
Polygraph Volume: 35 Issue: 2 Dated: 2006 Pages: 90-122
Date Published
2006
Length
23 pages
Annotation
This article proposes amendments to Military Rule of Evidence (MRE) 304(g), which pertains to the requirement that a confession or admission of a defendant cannot be used at trial as evidence of guilt unless accompanied by independent evidence that sufficiently corroborates the confession.
Abstract
The article begins with a review of the historical basis for the corroboration rule, tracing it to the corpus delecti rule, which is a common law doctrine that requires a prosecutor to prove that a crime was committed before allowing a defendant's extrajudicial confession to be admitted into evidence. Relevant U.S. Federal case law--Opper v. United States (1954) and United States v. Smith--is reviewed. MRE 304(g) is the codification of the corroboration rule in military criminal practice. It is modeled after the corroboration rule that applies in Federal courts under the Opper and Smith decisions. This article reviews the history and application of this rule in military courts. The proposed amendments to MRE 304(g) are intended to clarify its requirements in order to facilitate its fair and consistent application without eroding the protections it has historically provided. The proposed amendments are consistent with the historical mistrust of confessions and the rationale of the U.S. Supreme Court in "Smith" and "Opper." They preclude the erosion of the rule's purpose by preventing the military judge from synthesizing items of inadmissible hearsay in the creation of a single piece of evidence for the purpose of corroboration, as occurred in United States v. Grant (2002). 296 notes