The task of every trial since the dawn of time has been to reach the truth and establish the factual state with a broad explanation of various facts and evidence. One of the important pieces of evidence has always been the testimony of witnesses, but since ancient times they have been approached with a certain amount of caution. This is exemplified by the Code of Hammurabi, which already in its first paragraphs addresses the issue of responsibility for the spoken word, and the Latin maxim Unus testis, nullus testis, describing the rule of evidence law. According to this legal principle, unconfirmed testimony from one witness should be rejected, because it is considered too unreliable to establish a fact. This principle had its roots in biblical sources and Roman law. The books of penance, which were created in the era of late Christian antiquity and the early Middle Ages and which are evidence of the development of penitential practice in the Church, stood, like ancient legal cultures, also on guard so that witnesses testifying in court trials were guided only by the truth, so that false testimony would not contribute to an unjust verdict. The aim of the article is to show, in the light of the books of penance against the background of ancient laws, what consequences threatened a person who answered affirmatively to the question that, according to Bishop Burchard of Worms, should be asked of the penitent: “Have you been a false witness, that is, have you testified falsely and claimed that what was false was true? If yes, did you do it for the sake of love for someone, for a financial benefit, or out of fear?”
Marek Story (Thu,) studied this question.