Christine Blasey Ford has credibly testified that Brett Kavanaugh attempted to rape her in high school. But many who believe that she is telling the truth are still wondering whether senators should decide how to vote on Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination based on her testimony, in the absence of any “corroborating evidence.” Let’s put aside for a moment the possibility that additional evidence could emerge that supports or undermines Ford’s testimony. In a court of law, a judge or jury who believes that a witness is telling the truth can convict someone of a crime even without corroborating evidence. This happens all the time.

Historically, there was an exception: a defendant could not be convicted of sexual assault based on the alleged victim’s uncorroborated testimony. Feminist legal scholars in the nineteen-seventies and eighties strongly criticized the corroboration requirement for rape as sexist and based on the assumption that rape complainants, namely women, were less reliable than complainants of other crimes. Since then, the vast majority of jurisdictions in the country have eliminated the requirement of corroboration of an alleged victim’s testimony in sexual-assault cases. As a practical matter, it may be more difficult to convince a judge or a jury to believe a complaining witness’s testimony without other evidence to back it up. Still, evidence is evidence. It may come in the form of testimony by the alleged victim, the accused, other witnesses, or physical or documentary evidence. The notion that, when a witness has testified credibly, some special “corroborating evidence” is still needed in order to make a proper decision is simply incorrect.