The corpus delicti rule is an essential part of any criminal court case. It requires the prosecution
to prove the commission of a crime. Issues associated with corpus delicti include proving murder
vs. accidental death or suicide; using out-of-court confessions with or without corroborating
evidence; the type and quality of corroborating evidence; and cases of presumed homicide
wherein a body has not been found.
Consider that you are an appellate court judge hearing a defendant’s appeal in a criminal murder
case. In this case, a person disappeared; the body was not produced, and there was no physical
evidence found related to the disappearance. A defendant was arrested, tried, and convicted by a
jury of murdering the vanished victim fifteen years after the disappearance, based on
circumstantial evidence. This defendant is now appealing that conviction on the grounds of
insufficient evidence to prove murder.
Let’s review a few concepts before you make a decision about this scene.
Which of the following most accurately describes the meaning of the corpus delicti requirement?
A body has been produced which serves as evidence that a murder has been committed.
The prosecution has produced proof that the specific crime charged has been committed.
The prosecution can prove murder without having to prove the death was not accidental.
A confession outside court by a defendant without corroborating evidence is insufficient.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) National Missing and Unidentified Persons
System (NamUs), at any time, more than _______ Americans are missing; more than _______
unidentified human remains are found in America every year; and by a year after discovery,
roughly _______ of these have still not been identified. Which choice fills in the blanks
correctly?
90,000; 4,400; 1,000
20,000; 550; 100
4,400; 1,000; 550
55,000; 4,400; 100
A woman, Vicki, vanished one day with no trace. Fifteen years later, Vicki’s sister-in-law Debbie
(they were originally married to two brothers) was convicted by a jury trial of killing Vicki.
Vicki’s body had never been found, and there was no physical evidence to inform the case.
Debbie appeals the conviction on the grounds of there being insufficient evidence to prove she
was guilty.
You would grant the appeal and overturn the guilty verdict because there was no body or
physical evidence, only circumstantial evidence.
You would reject the appeal and uphold the guilty verdict because the nature of the
circumstantial evidence made it sufficient in this case.
Because a body has not been found, nor has any physical evidence associated with Vicki’s long-
ago disappearance, you are inclined to grant Debbie’s appeal, as circumstantial evidence alone is
insufficient to prove she committed murder.
Let’s review a few concepts before you make another decision about this scene.
In the case of a missing person, which statement is most accurate regarding whether a prosecutor
can prove corpus delicti to show that the missing person was murdered?
If there is no body, then corpus delicti can be proven through circumstantial evidence.
In a case such as this, the prosecutor must only prove the defendant killed the person.
In a case such as this, the prosecutor must prove only that the missing person is dead.
If there is no body, then there is no evidence; therefore, there is no case to prosecute.
Which of the following correctly describes the evidential rules governing out-of-court
confessions for state courts in the U.S.?
In some states, if prosecutors prove confessions trustworthy, corroborating evidence is not
needed.
All state jurisdictions accept out-of-court confessions with no corroboration by additional
evidence.
All state jurisdictions require that out-of-court confessions be corroborated by additional
evidence.
In some states, corroborating evidence is required and must always have the same type and
quality.
Following the evidence identified above, you then learn that ten years after Vicki’s
disappearance, Debbie, having married another man (not the former fiancé who had been
involved with Vicki), confided to him that she had killed her sister-in-law a long time ago. This
man testified to her confession.
With only circumstantial evidence but without a body or physical evidence related to Vicki’s
disappearance, Debbie’s guilt has not been proven.
Not only does the circumstantial evidence in this case overwhelmingly point to Debbie’s guilt; it
now corroborates her out-of-court confession to murder.
