- the test for determining whether a witness is an accomplice is whether a witness could be convicted of the same crime
CAAF Opinion Digest · III.C.2 · Evidence
Accomplice Testimony
3 digested opinions, 2000–2003 Terms
2003
2002
- while the better practice is to caution members against placing too much reliance upon the testimony of an accomplice, there is no absolute bar to a conviction based on the testimony of an accomplice, even though there is no cautionary instruction
2000
- old Manual rule, which required corroboration when an accomplice’s testimony was self-contradictory, uncertain, or improbable, and which raised evidentiary sufficiency concerns, did not carry over to RCM 918(c), the Discussion to which notes only that any accomplice testimony “should be considered with great caution”
Source and status
This is a verbatim mirror of the Opinion Digest and opinions tables published by the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The headnotes are the court staff’s summaries of the opinions, reproduced as published; they are not the opinions themselves and not this site’s commentary. Nothing here is edited on this site.
Last updated by the court: Oct 13, 2026 · mirrored Oct 29, 2026 · digest page IIIC2 · Always confirm a holding against the opinion itself (linked from each case name).