Courts often deem testimony binding, and generally speaking, the law prohibits confessors from recanting their testimony unless they can show that their testimony contains an error of fact. The unity of the principle of confession avoids selective application of confessions, ensuring that they are not used to the advantage of the confession, leaving out its harmful parts. However, insisting on the principle of unity can lead to injustice. It may prevent both plaintiffs and defendants from using testimony to their advantage and may therefore lead to the unfair use or questioning of testimony. The article shows how we can use technology to analyze and dispose of court testimony. Our goal is to reveal, define and redefine the unity of the principle of confession by proposing exceptions that allow for further division of confessions to make legal procedures more logical and fair. We propose adapting technological tools to make decisions fairer.