51
evidence outside the confessions furnished adequate corroboration.
A. Corroboration of A Confession Requires Only Evidence That Will Tend to Establish The Trustworthiness of The Confession, and Does Not Require Evidence Sufficient to Establish The Corpus Delicti Independently of The Confession
The special problem with respect to reliance on a confession arises out of concern whether a particular confession may be the product of "the aberration or weakness of the accused under the strain of suspicion" (Opper v. United States, 348 U.S. 84, 90). But if facts are shown, by evidence other than the confession, demonstrating that the confession is not a fantasy warped by the aberration or weakness of the accused, then the finder of fact—here, the trial judge—may properly attribute the confession to the familiar motivation of an accused person who realizes that he has been caught and may as well tell the truth. The confession may then be weighed upon the basis "that one who is innocent will not imperil his safety or prejudice his interests by an untrue statement" (Hopt v. Utah, 110 U.S. 574, 585).
The limited extent of the corroboration required has been clearly marked by this Court. The essence, as stated in Opper, supra, is that the independent evidence should "tend" to establish the trustworthiness "of the statement"; and it "is sufficient if the corroboration supports the essential facts admitted sufficiently to justify a jury inference of their truth" (348 U.S. at 93).
631490—62——5
