New York Law (NYLE) Practice Exam

An accomplice to a crime received a favorable plea deal requiring him to testify against the defendant. At a subsequent trial of the defendant, the accomplice's testimony:

1. Is inadmissible because the favorable plea deal makes the testimony inherently unreliable.

2. Is sufficient by itself to convict the defendant if it establishes each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

3. Must be corroborated with some other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime.

4. Must be corroborated with some other evidence independent of the accomplice's testimony establishing that the defendant committed the crime.

The correct answer is: Must be corroborated with some other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime.

The correct choice emphasizes the legal principle that an accomplice's testimony cannot be solely relied upon for a conviction, as it is inherently suspect due to the potential for bias motivated by the plea deal. In New York, the general rule is that the testimony of an accomplice must be corroborated by additional evidence that connects the defendant to the crime for a conviction to be valid. This requirement acknowledges that the testimony of an accomplice could be skewed by interests in reducing their own punishment, which can compromise its reliability. Corroborating evidence must support the accomplice's claims and link the defendant to the criminal activity, providing a safeguard against wrongful convictions based solely on potentially self-serving testimony. This ensures that the courts maintain a high standard of proof and fairness in criminal proceedings, protecting the rights of defendants. Other options fall short because option A wrongly suggests that all accomplice testimony is inadmissible, which is not the case; it can be used if corroborated. Option B incorrectly implies that the testimony alone can be sufficient for conviction, disregarding the need for corroboration. Lastly, option D does not specify the need for the evidence to connect the defendant to the crime, which is crucial in satisfying the corroboration requirement in New York law.