An Aiibi Witness' Influence on Mock Jurors' Verdicts¹

Abstract

The impact of alibi testimony on juror decision making is not yet clear because it has been examined empirically infrequently. This study was designed to determine the impact of alibi witness' testimony, the impact of an alibi witness with a relationship in comparison to one without a relationship to the defendant, and the impact of an eyewitness' confidence on juror decision making. Results indicated that mock jurors acquit a defendant more often when an alibi witness with no relationship to the defendant testified on his behalf. Participants did not believe an alibi witness who had a relationship with the defendant even though the witness was not a family member. Implications for these results are discussed.

Changed Alibis

“…Those with motivation to lie have consistently been shown to be perceived as weaker alibi corroborators (Culhane & Hosch, 2004;Hosch et al, 2011;Olson & Wells, 2004); hence we identify a change from motivated to unmotivated as a strengthened statement. Likewise, we consider the opposite (unmotivated to motivated) to be a weakened statement.…”

A Likely Story? The Influence of Type of Alibi and Defendant Gender on Juror Decision-Making

“…If an alibi is found to be false, this should not necessarily lead to an inference of guilt, as there are several reasons why an individual may be mistaken as to his or her whereabouts at a particular time (Culhane & Hosch, 2004). In Ontario, the Court of Appeal has specifically addressed this by stating that false alibis can serve as corroborative evidence, but cannot alone be used to determine guilt (R. v. Mahoney, 1979).…”

“…This research suggests that participants' perceptions of an alibi may be influenced by the relationship between the defendant and the alibi witness (Culhane & Hosch, 2004), the context of the evaluation (police investigation vs. criminal trial vs. unspecified; Sommers & Douglass, 2007), defendant race (Sargent & Bradfield, 2004), corroboration of the alibi (Culhane & Hosch, 2004;Olson & Wells, 2004;Sommers & Douglass, 2007), ease of fabrication (Olson & Wells, 2004) and order of evidence presentation (Dahl, Brimacombe, & Lindsay, 2009).…”

‘But can you prove it?’ – examining the quality of innocent suspects' alibis

“…eyewitness evidence; see Neil v Biggers, 1972;Wells et al, 1998). In general, however, evaluators seem to be highly skeptical of alibis, and tend to disbelieve alibis without solid corroborating evidence (Culhane & Hosch, 2004;Olson & Wells, 2004). In fact, anecdotal reports suggest evaluators may go to great lengths to try to undermine an alibi provider's alibi (Olson & Wells, 2004).…”