英美法因特定制度背景,長期存在單一證據定案法則,但證據印證即證據契合,仍為定案的基本要求。補強證據法則體現這一要求,而"一致性"審查,歸納邏輯以及圖示法、概要法等證據構造分析方法的運用亦如此。證據間的"一致性",系陪審團心證成立最重要的因素。大陸法系并無單一證據定案傳統,其現代刑事訴訟也更為青睞整體性證據判斷模式。法定證據制度如剔除其機械、僵化的非理性因素,其客觀主義傾向及證據契合要求,與印證證明模式有相通之處。大陸法系的自由心證制度雖摒棄機械印證,但因其與實質真實主義、判決理據釋明以及趨向于整體主義的證據分析方法的聯系,因此仍重證據契合。但整體主義與敘事法聯系,則非印證分析思路,而原子主義與圖示法、概要法的聯系及歸納邏輯的運用,反而突出了證據契合與融貫分析的作用。荷蘭法中"孤證不能定罪"的原則及其實踐中的靈活性、德國法對證言矛盾的處理、歐洲人權法院對證言補強規則的適用等,均有研究和借鑒價值。比較研究確認了印證方法的普適性,但應注意類型化區分與精細化適用,包括學習運用證據分析的技術方法,注意訴訟條件對印證方法的制約,研究單一證據定案的條件與方法等。

Under common law system, corroboration(the agreement between different evidence) is still a basic requirement in deciding a case, despite the long-held practice of deciding a case with single evidence. Such requirement is embodied in the rules governing corroborating evidence, in the examination of the consistency of evidence, as well as in the use of techniques in analyzing evidence such as the use of induction, graphs, and summary. In fact the consistency between different evidence is most important for a jury to reach the inner conviction. Under the continental law system, with no tradition of deciding a case with single evidence, its modern criminal justice prefers an integral evaluation of evidence. Its legal evidence system in the past, if rid of its rigid and irrational parts, was in fact quite similar to the corroboration theory in its tendency toward objectivism and its requirement of agreement between evidence. Its modern free evaluation of evidence, having discarded the rigid parts of legal evidence system, and pursued instead substantial truth, judgment reasoning, integral analysis of evidence, also agrees with the corroboration theory. Among the techniques used for evidence evaluation, though the holism associated with narrative method is not in line with the logic of corroboration, the atomism associated with graphic method and summary and the use of induction all highlight the significance of the agreement between evidence and of integral analysis. Some practices from continental countries are worth learning, e.g., the rule of "no conviction with solitary evidence" in Netherlands law, the handling of contradictory testimonies in Germany, and the application of the corroborative evidence rule in European Court of Human Rights. As the comparative study has proven, the corroboration theory is universal. But in practice, attention needs to be paid to categorical differentiation, precise application of the theory, proper use of techniques in evidence analysis. In addition, it needs to be noted that the techniques used in corroboration may be conditioned by judicial proceedings, and that the conditions and methods needs to be studied for deciding a case with single evidence.