This Comment attempts to analyze and justify the Nebraska Supreme Court's retention of the corroboration rule in cases of rape and assault with intent to commit rape. The analysis is based on two broad principles. First, the state's burden of proof in all criminal cases is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Second, because legal doctrines "derive meaning and content from the circumstances that gave rise to them and from the purposes they were designed to serve," we should not be anxious to change an established legal doctrine, unless experience has shown that the pertinent causative circumstances no longer prevail or that the doctrine no longer serves its intended purpose. Part II of this Comment analyzes the theory of the corroboration rule. In part III Nebraska's rule is explained and in part IV the State v. Fisher case is used to illustrate that the need for a corroboration rule still exists.
Alan G. Gless,
Nebraska's Corroboration Rule,
54 Neb. L. Rev. 93
Available at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol54/iss1/7