This might be the second-most frequently asked question by our clients. There’s a very specific answer for sexual assault cases - NH law, upheld by the NH Supreme Court, holds that a sexual assault complainant’s story and trial testimony need not be corroborated at all, the jury just needs to decide whether they believe that story beyond a reasonable doubt. But in other types of cases, it is also fairly common to have a case where one person makes an identification of the assaillant, or the thief, etc, and there is no corroborating evidence such as an incriminating video or an injury.

Yes, that’s scary. The rationale with respect to sexual assault cases makes sense - there rarely is a “witness” to sexual assault, there often is no physical evidence, and confessions don’t happen very often either, even by the guilty. But that logical explanation does nothing to reduce the anxiety and fear of an innocent client who has been falsely accused and understands that he could be convicted based on the accuser’s story alone. And there are a lot of innocent clients out there.

Our answer to this is that it’s our job to dig deep and find the opposite of corroboration - find evidence that tends to identify a motive for the complainant to lie, or evidence that makes the complainant’s story seem improbable, or admissible evidence that shows the complainant is not a trustworthy person generally. This is what we do everyday, because the law does allow a person to be convicted of a crime based on just one other person’s story, and that means we have to do everything we can to undermine that story.