“But I Wasn’t There!”

Abstract

Using the exoneree summaries in the Innocence Project and the documentation in the Innocence Record, we analyze the content of the alibis of those who have been wrongly convicted and exonerated with the use of DNA. Sixty-five percent of the 377 DNA exonerees had an alibi. Fifty-one percent reported that their alibi corroborators were friends and/or family members, while only about 10% presented physical evidence to support their alibi. Those with an alibi were significantly less likely to falsely confess than those without an alibi. Eyewitnesses were significantly more likely to be a contributing cause of conviction for those with an alibi than for those without an alibi, and 27% of the exonerees with an alibi had only eyewitness evidence to implicate them. Those that had an alibi were also more likely to claim that they had an inadequate defense than those that did not have an alibi. We conclude this paper with recommendations for reforms and future research.

Alibi believability: Corroborator certainty, cooperativeness and relationship with the defendant

“…For example, officers surveyed in Dysart and Strange (2012) stated that the suspects they have interviewed about their alibis had family members, romantic partners and friends as alibi corroborators much more frequently than strangers or acquaintances. Similarly, an archival analysis of 377 DNA exoneration cases also confirmed that alibi evidence from friends and family were more common in the sample (51%) than physical alibi evidence (10%) (Heath et al., 2021). People spend a lot of time with their friends and family members; therefore, it is perhaps not surprising that alibi corroborators are often well‐known to defendants and suspects.…”

“…As stated in the introduction, this is concerning because some defendants speak the truth when they claim to have been with close family or friends, and both lab and field research suggests that such motivated witnesses are often asked to corroborate alibi claims (e.g. Heath et al., 2021; Nieuwkamp et al., 2017). Although having an alibi corroborator who is not a family member, like a neighbour, is very beneficial in an alibi defence, it is quite uncommon (e.g.…”

“…Although having an alibi corroborator who is not a family member, like a neighbour, is very beneficial in an alibi defence, it is quite uncommon (e.g. Dysart & Strange, 2012; Heath et al., 2021). But it is to the defendant's benefit to seek alibi support from non‐family members whenever possible.…”

“…Alibis are claims that defendants were elsewhere when a crime occurred and could not have committed the crime (Burke & Turtle, 2003). They are important to study empirically because 65% of DNA exonerees in the United States had alibis that were not believed when they should have been (Heath et al., 2021). Alibi believability research has focused on how jurors evaluate physical and person alibi evidence (e.g., Olson & Wells, 2004).…”