What type of statement must be corroborated before being admissible in a criminal case?

In criminal law, a statement against interest must usually be corroborated to be admissible as evidence. This category of statements involves an assertion by a declarant that is so contrary to their own interest that a reasonable person in their position would not have made it unless they believed it to be true. The rationale behind requiring corroboration is to ensure the reliability and trustworthiness of the statement, given that the declarant risks their own interests by making such an admission.

For example, if an individual confesses to a crime in the presence of another person, that confession would need additional evidence to support its reliability before it could be presented in court. This helps safeguard against false confessions or statements that may be influenced by coercion or duress.

Other statements, such as dying declarations or medical records, are often treated differently under the rules of evidence. Dying declarations, for instance, are considered reliable when made, under the assumption that individuals are less likely to deceive when they believe they are at the end of their life. Medical records carry a presumption of accuracy due to their formal nature and the professional responsibility of the makers. These nuances in evidentiary rules underscore why statements against interest necessitate corroboration for their admissibility in a criminal case