united-states
This is not a question that is controlled by a federal statute or by U.S. Constitutional criminal procedure (arising mostly under the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments to the Bill of Rights, most provisions of which other than the grand jury requirement, are also applicable to state court proceedings).
No Contest And Alford Pleas In The U.S.
In U.S. district court federal criminal prosecutions (with court permission) and in some U.S. states, there is a special process by which one can, in substance, plead guilty, without admitting the facts of the case against you, sometimes called a "no contest plea." (The Latin phrase used to describe such a plea is a nolo contendere plea). Many states reserve this option for relatively minor offense like traffic misdemeanors.
For example:
In Michigan, "A nolo contendere plea does not admit guilt, it merely
communicates to the court that the criminal defendant does not wish to
contest the state's accusations and will acquiesce in the imposition
of punishment." A nolo contendere plea may be appropriate "where
the defendant would not be able to supply a sufficient factual basis
for a guilty plea because he or she was intoxicated on the night of
the incident, where there is the possibility of future civil
litigation resulting from the offense, or where a defendant cannot
remember the events which led to his or her being charged with a
crime" 1A Gillespie Michigan Criminal Law & Procedure, § 16:15.
Closely related to a "no contest" plea is an Alford plea:
In United States law, an Alford plea, also called a Kennedy plea in
West Virginia, an Alford guilty plea, and the Alford doctrine, is a
guilty plea in criminal court, whereby a defendant in a criminal case
does not admit to the criminal act and asserts innocence, but admits
that the evidence presented by the prosecution would be likely to
persuade a judge or jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt. . . . Alford pleas are legally permissible in
nearly all U.S. federal and state courts, except in the state courts
of Indiana, Michigan, and New Jersey, or in the courts of the United
States Armed Forces.
In some Alford plea cases, the evidence that makes a conviction likely is a confession.
Of course, when there is a "no contest" or "guilty" plea in a case, no trial is ever held, ands the plea amounts to a confession.
In Cases Where There Is A Not Guilty Or No Contest Plea In The U.S.
The requirements are likewise not uniform across the United States when there is a not guilty plea and the defendant disputes the sufficiency of the confession alone.
Of course, in practice, it doesn't come up very often, because it is rare for prosecutors to prosecute a case in which there is a not guilty plea in the absence of evidence other than a confession that a crime was committed, or that it was committed by the person who allegedly confessed. Usually, a confession is obtained in an investigation of a reported crime, and uncorroborated confessions of inmates in prison with no prospects of release ever or until there are very old are often not taken very seriously by law enforcement.
This is a question of state law in state criminal cases, it is a question of federal law in cases arising under Title 18 of the United States Code (the federal criminal code), it is a question of different federal laws in military justice courts-marital prosecutions which are quasi-criminal in nature, and it is a case of district or territorial law in most areas of the U.S. that are outside a U.S. state that are not prosecuted under Title 18 of the United States Code.
In U.S. military court-martial cases, corroboration of a confession is required to convict.
In U.S. law, in many state and in federal court civilian criminal prosecutions, a validly obtained confession alone is sufficient evidence to convict.
A criminal defendant who does not plead guilty may offer evidence at trial to rebut the validity of a confession at trial. And, if the evidence is sufficient to create a reasonable doubt, an appellate court could overturn a conviction based upon the sufficiently rebutted confession alone. But, a confession alone that is not adequately rebutted at trial with other evidence can support a criminal conviction in most civilian U.S. criminal justice systems.
Also, frequently, a confession made prior to trial is challenged on the ground that it was obtained in violation of a defendant's Miranda rights or was not a voluntary confession that was obtained in violation of more general constitutional due process rights of a defendant (mostly under the 5th Amendment). In those cases, if the challenge is successful, the confession never comes into evidence at all, and thus, can't be used to support a conviction.
In other cases where there is doubt that a confession is to a crime that was actually committed, the matter is often resolved for practical purposes with a forensic psychiatrist's determination affirmed by a judge, that the defendant is not mentally competent to stand trial.
Post-Conviction Relief In The U.S.
In U.S. law, another way that a case can present itself is when a guilty plea is entered, or a conviction is reached following a trial, and someone subsequently comes to the court after the conviction alleging that the conviction should be set aside because the crime in question was not committed.
In practice, if it is clear that the crime in question didn't happen (e.g. a murder conviction of someone who shows up in court alive who pranked the confessing defendant into thinking he was killed), courts usually vacate the conviction without objection from the prosecutor's office.
This is a form of a "collateral attack" on a conviction, and it is sometimes successful. But it is not always successful, even if the evidence that the crime was not committed is overwhelming.
There is dispute in the case law and jurisprudence, in particular, in a federal collateral attack on a conviction, called a habeas corpus petition, if "actual innocence" is available as a defense to a conviction in the absence of any procedural violations of a defendant's rights in the court process. Very few convictions are set aside on that ground, but it is very frequently raised in habeas corpus petitions.
united-kingdom
In the United Kingdom, corroboration of a confession where there is not a guilty plea is required to convict (but this is not required in all cases Canada and in some other Commonwealth countries).
In the Commonwealth countries — such as England and Wales, Scotland,
Canada, and Australia — the plea of nolo contendere is not permitted.
The defendant must enter a plea of "guilty" or "not guilty". If a
defendant refuses to enter a plea, the court will record a plea of
"not guilty".
(Source)
These shorthand descriptions only roughly state the situation in English law. For a more nuanced, but somewhat dated, analysis of the situation under the law of England and Wales that also traces the history of the relevant law there, see Raymond K. Berg, "Criminal Procedure: France, England, and the United States" 8(2) DePaul Law Review pages 256, 325-330 (1959). As noted there prior to 1660, confessions in or out of court were considered guilty pleas in English law, but major reforms were adopted in the 1800s. The departures of American law from English law in this area, in part, flows from the fact that the reforms of English law post-dated the American Revolution.
france
Most civil law legal systems are based on the legal codes of France, Germany, or Spain. France's legal system is examined in this post as representative of this type of system, as it was the original civil code legal system.
France does not have a legal system rooted in the English common law, although it did heavily imitate English criminal procedure from 1791 to 1808. The structure and most of the principal doctrines of French criminal procedure are traceable to a legal code called the Code d'Instruction Criminelle adopted there in 1808, and then significantly overhauled and reformed in multiple installments the first of which was adopted in 1958, which is the event that prompted Professor Berg to write Raymond K. Berg, "Criminal Procedure: France, England, and the United States" 8(2) DePaul Law Review pages 256, 283-295 (1959).
As of 1959, in France, the investigatory phase of a criminal investigation was more formalized than under English or American law and more cleanly separates investigative and deliberative parts of the criminal justice process with different personnel assigned to each function (all quotations below are from Berg, some spellings may be incorrect due to incorrect OCR translations):
The first stage is the preliminary investigation wherein the offence is verified, the circumstances under which it occurred are determined
and evidence is gathered. In the second stage all the evidence is
weighed in order to decide whether or not the accused should be held
for trial. The third stage is the trial itself.
The investigation of offences preliminary to trial is carried on by a
group known as the police judiciare and by the juge d'instruction
who, until the new code, was considered a member of the police
judiciaire. The police judiciaire is operated under the direction
of the procureur de la Republique and is under the supervision of
the procureur general in each Cour d'Appel district. The police
judiciaire is, with certain exceptions, in charge of investigating
violations of penal law, gathering evidence and finding suspected
parties until investigation is begun. When the investigation is begun,
it performs tasks assigned to it by investigating officials.
This formal body can interview suspects and witnesses:
If it is necessary to hold a person more than 24 hours, he must be
taken before the procureur de la RWpublique who can authorize a
further 24 hour period. During this period of detention, the suspect
may be interrogated, though the length and details of the
interrogation must be noted by the officer of the police judiciaire
in a written report. A medical examination of the suspect can be
ordered by the procureur de la Republique or by the suspect if he
demands it after 24 hours. It is provided that the procureur general
can instruct the police judiciaire to gather any information which
he thinks will help him to administer justice. The procureur de la
Republique also has the power to direct their investigations. The
juge d'instruction as well, may delegate his duties to the police judiciaire so that they have all the powers of the juge
d'instruction when acting within the limits of that investigation.
They are not allowed however, when acting in this capacity, to
interrogate or confront the accused. If it is necessary to detain a
suspect, they must bring him before the judge d'instruction within 24
hours. . . .If the offence is a "flagrant" crime, the procureur de la
Republique may examine the suspect at once. If the suspect brings
counsel he cannot be questioned except in the presence of that
counsel. If the offence is a "flagrant" d6lit, the procureur may
place the suspect in custody after interrogation. If the juge
d'instruction is present, the procureur de la Ripublique and the
officers of the police judiciaire hand the case over to him and he
proceeds with the investigation. Thus, the police judiciaire can
make investigations and interrogate the suspect upon delegation or
instructions from the procureur general, the procureur de la
R6publique, the juge d'instruction, the prefet, or by virtue of
their own office. They also have additional powers in the case of a
"flagrant" crime or delit . . .
It is the duty of the juge d'instruction to conduct an
investigation known as the preliminary
examination (instruction priparatoire). The judge may make such an
investigation in three cases only: when directed by the procureur;
when the person injured by a crime or delit complains to the judge and
constitutes himself a partie civile; when the offense is considered
a "flagrant" delit, in which case the judge on his own initiative
may conduct an investigation. It must be emphasized that the purpose
of this investigation is to determine whether there is enough evidence
to hold the suspect for trial. . . The most ancient feature of this
investigation is the interrogation (interrogatoire) of the suspect.
It is also the most characteristic and probably the most important
part of the investigation since it may lead to a confession and
because the judge cannot order the committal for trial until he has
heard the suspect. The theoretical purpose of the interrogatoire is
the ascertainment of truth. It is necessary to consider it (the
interrogatoire) as being at the same time a means of defense and a means of investigation; its object is to hear the explanations of the
suspect for the purpose of verifying them, to record his denials or
his admissions, to search for the truth of the facts in his convincing
or contradictory statements. The interrogatoire is conducted
secretly in either the cabinet of the judge or in the jail. The number
of the interrogatoires is left entirely to the discretion of the
judge. All that occurs during the proceedings is noted though the
suspect is not under oath. The suspect cannot be questioned by anyone
except the judge.
The Code provides for at least two appearances of the suspect before
the judge d'instruction. At his first appearance, the judge will
verify the identity of the suspect, tell him expressly each charge
against him and warn him that he is free not to make a declaration. If
the suspect wishes to make a declaration the judge takes it at once.
If the judge is of the opinion that the accused should be examined, he
must inform the suspect of his right to counsel. If the suspect
wishes, he will have one officially chosen for him. The judge may
carry out an immediate interrogation if the matter is urgent," but
other than this, the first appearance is regarded as a preliminary
proceeding in order to inform the suspect of his rights and give him
an opportunity to explain away the charge. Thus, as a general rule,
the judge may not question the suspect at his first appearance.
At least two days before the interrogation, counsel for the suspect is
summoned by a registered letter. The proceedings must also be placed
at the disposition of the counsel for the suspect at least 24 hours
before each interrogation. The procureur may also be present at the
interrogatoire."I During the interrogatoire, the procureur and counsel for the suspect can only ask questions after receiving the
permission of the judge. Counsel for the suspect listens to the
interrogatoire and makes notes. His role is to keep a check on the judge. If the suspect refuses to answer, the judge is provided with no
means of compulsion.
If the suspect persists, mention of this must be made in the proces
verbal and if the suspect is brought to trial, the court may draw an
unfavourable inference from the fact of such refusal. As soon as the
judge d'instruction considers the investigation completed he sends the dossier to the procureur de la Republique, who must return his
order within 3 days. If the judge feels the facts do not constitute a
crime, delit or contravention, he declares a non-suit by decree. If
he thinks the facts constitute a contravention, he decrees that the
case be remitted to the Tribunal de Simple Police. If he thinks the
facts constitute a delit, he decrees that the case be remitted to
the Tribunal Correctionnel. If he thinks the facts constitute a
crime, he decrees that the dossier and statement of evidence be sent
by the procureur de la Republique to the procureur giniral at the
Cour d'Appel so that the Chambre d'Accusation can decide whether the suspect should be held for trial.""
Thus, if the offence charged is a crime, there has probably been an
investigation by the police judiciaire under the procureur de la
Republique and an independent examination by the judge
d'instruction. The suspect has probably been interrogated by the
police judiciaire and by the judge d'instruction. The result of these investigations is all contained in one dossier which is now sent
up to the Chambre d'Accusation which will decide if the suspect
should be tried in the Cour d'Assise.
The bottom line is that in France and most other civil law legal systems, while there is not a category prohibition on conviction of someone for a crime when there is a confession but no corroborating evidence that the crime was committed by the defendant, the task of the investigative stage judicial officials in the preliminary investigation phase of the process is to determine whether a crime was committed and what it was from a pro-active review of all of the evidence available or that can be obtained including a statement from a defendant with a right to counsel.
The investigative judicial officials must be convinced from all of the evidence that is available to them that a crime was committed by the defendant. A confession might be critical in that evaluation, but the official's duties are to not accept that blindly and instead evaluate the defendant's statements in light of the totality of the evidence.
It also bears noting that in the civil law system, following a first trial, an appeal on issues of both fact and law, including the issue of whether a crime was committed, is allowed, unlike in common law systems, where the findings of fact made at trial are final and binding on all appellate courts reviewing the case.
