The merits of corroborated evidence in criminal trials have been hotly debated in many jurisdictions, with most having now abandoned this requirement. The Scottish government intends to do likewise—at a time when some other jurisdictions are considering its reintroduction. This article considers whether there is merit in retaining a corroboration requirement for two types of evidence, namely for visual identifications and extra-judicial confessions. It explores whether the introduction of a weighted jury majority, as the government proposes, can compensate for the problematic nature of such evidence. In respect of visual identification evidence, it is argued that any safeguard which corroboration might have provided has been weakened by the way in which the courts have developed the law. Alternative mechanisms for improving the quality of such evidence are assessed. In relation to confessions, the article argues that increasing the jury majority is a poor substitute for corroboration.