THE HISTORY AND POLICY OF CONFESSION CORROBORATION AND THE RELATIONSHIP OF CORROBORATION TO OTHER CONFESSION DOCTRINES ARE EXAMINED. TWO MAJOR FORMULATIONS OF THE CORROBORATION RULE IN AMERICAN CRIMINAL LAW ARE DISCUSSED: THE CORPUS DELICTI VERSION, FOLLOWED IN NEW YORK AND THE MAJORITY OF OTHER STATES; AND THE TRUSTWORTHINESS VERSION, FOLLOWED IN THE FEDERAL COURTS AND IN AN INCREASING NUMBER OF STATES. THE CORPUS DELICTI VERSION REQUIRES THAT CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE TEND TO PROVE THAT A BASIC INJURY ACTUALLY OCCURRED AND WAS THE RESULT OF CRIMINAL RATHER THAN NATURAL OR ACCIDENTAL CAUSES. THE TRUSTWORTHINESS VERSION REQUIRES EVIDENCE CORROBORATIVE OF THE CONFESSION'S RELIABILITY. AN ANALYSIS OF JUDICIAL DECISIONS INTERPRETING THE NEW YORK RULE INDICATES THAT THE RULE IS OUTMODED, VAGUE, AND UNWORKABLE. ALTHOUGH THE RULE WAS INTRODUCED TO PREVENT CONVICTIONS FOR CRIMES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN COMMITTED, IT HAS BEEN USED PRIMARILY TO PREVENT CONVICTIONS BASED ON UNRELIABLE CONFESSIONS--A PURPOSE TO WHICH IT IS NOT WELL SUITED. IN LIGHT OF DEVELOPMENTS IN CONFESSION LAW, IT IS CONCLUDED THAT THE ONLY REMAINING RATIONALE FOR CONFESSION CORROBORATION IS THE PREVENTION OF CONVICTIONS BASED ON UNRELIABLE FACTS CONTAINED IN CONFESSIONS. THE TRUSTWORTHINESS VERSION OF CORROBORATION RELATES TO THIS RATIONALE. A TRUSTWORTHINESS VERSION OF THE CONFESSION CORROBORATION RULE, TAILORED TO NEW YORK'S EXISTING EVIDENTIARY AND PROCEDURAL LAW, IS PROPOSED. (LKM)