U.S. Constitution, Article 3, Section 3:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

So, if a soldier conspires with the enemy to kill his commander and attempts to enter secretly into his commander's tent and tries but fails in to kill his commander but leaves his commander alive to testify against the traitor, then he is guilty of treason, having given aid to the enemy. However, the testimony of the commander alone is not sufficient to convict the man of treason. For you need at least two witnesses to the same overt act.

Yet, if the same person should try to kill the commander for personal reasons in peace time when they are both off duty, then the testimony of the commander alone is sufficient for conviction.

This raises a contradiction:
Determination of guilt "beyond any reasonable doubt" is the most strict standard of judgment in the United States. And it applies to all crimes, including treason. So, if guilt can be determined beyond a reasonable doubt on the testimony of the victim alone, then the U.S. Constitution is obstructing justice by requiring two witnesses to the same overt act. And so the converse must also be true: if the U.S. Constitution does not obstruct justice, then guilt cannot be determined beyond a reasonable doubt on the testimony of the victim alone.



The above is only the opinion of the author.