In New York, a defendant cannot be convicted solely on unsworn testimony. Which statement is true?

• A. A defendant cannot be convicted solely on unsworn testimony
• B. A defendant can be convicted solely on unsworn testimony
• C. Uns sworn testimony is always required for conviction
• D. The court requires corroboration for unsworn testimony

Answer: (A)

In New York, for a conviction the evidence presented at trial must be sworn. Unsworn statements do not provide the sworn, cross-examinable testimony that the fact-finder relies on to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Because of that, a defendant cannot be convicted solely on unsworn testimony; the verdict must be based on sworn testimony (and other admissible evidence).

This is why the statement that a defendant cannot be convicted solely on unsworn testimony is true. The other options stray: a conviction cannot rest only on unsworn statements; there isn’t a blanket rule that unsworn testimony is always required for conviction, and the requirement for corroboration typically concerns the testimony of an accomplice, not all unsworn testimony in general.