Alibi corroboration: an examination of laypersons’ expectations
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JCP-07-2021-0030 |
| Published date | 06 June 2022 |
| Date | 06 June 2022 |
| Pages | 33-45 |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Criminology & forensic psychology,Criminal psychology,Sociology,Sociology of crime & law,Deviant behaviour,Public policy & environmental management,Policing,Criminal justice |
| Author | Kelly Warren,Mark Snow,Heidi Abbott |
Alibi corroboration: an examination of
laypersons’expectations
Kelly Warren, Mark Snow and Heidi Abbott
Abstract
Purpose –The study aims to examinewhat laypersons expect those corroboratingan alibi to remember
about an interactionwith an alibi provider.
Design/methodology/approach –Participants (N= 314) were presented with a mock crime scenario
and answered questions about an alibi provider (i.e. the criminal suspect) and alibi corroborators.
Participants also completed a lineup task based on the scenario and rated the likelihood of their own
abilityto corroborate the suspect’s alibi.
Findings –Overall, participants believedthat it was moderately likely that an alibi corroborator with no
prior relationship withthe suspect would be able to vouch for the suspect, providea description and to
remember his general physical characteristics. Those who were inaccurate in their lineup decision
demonstrated lower expectations of their own ability to corroborate the suspect’s alibi relative to those
who were accuratein their decision.
Originality/value –To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first known study to assess what
those judging an alibi expectwhen making a decision about the outcome of a case. Results demonstrate
that laypeople have arguably unrealistic expectations of alibi corroborators, potentially jeopardizing
innocentpeople’s ability to prove their innocence.
Keywords Expectations, Perceptions, Alibi, Corroborator, Layperson, Lineup
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Criminal suspects can attempt to establish their innocence with the provision of an alibi (for
a review, see Charman et al., 2019). In many cases, however, alibis have been insufficient
to exculpate innocent alibi providers (Burke et al.,2007), and researchers have identified
this lack of protection as a major contributor to wrongful convictions (Dysart and Strange,
2012). The failure of alibis to protect the innocent is evident in many high-profile cases of
wrongful conviction. Steven Avery,for example (the focus of the Netflix documentary series,
Making a Murderer), was wrongfully convicted of rape and spent nearly two decades in
prison despite having 16 individuals who corroborated his alibi (Innocence Project, 2022).
Avery’s and similar cases help to reveal an important aspect of the alibi assessment
process, namely, that alibis are often not believed despite the testimony of alibi
corroborators (i.e. people who canverify the suspect was otherwise occupied at the time of
the crime; Heath et al.,2021).
Alibi providers often report that at least one other person can corroborate their claims
(Culhane et al., 2008;Culhane et al.,2013). The quality of a corroborator’s memory,
however, is a major factor that exists outside of the control of the alibi provider (Charman
et al.,2017
). A recent study showed that potential alibi corroborators were generally
unreliable and that alibi providers overestimated the likelihood that their corroborator would
identify them after a 24-hour delay (Charman et al., 2017). This suggests that unfair
expectations may exist, but what exactly do people (i.e. potential alibi assessors such as
Kelly Warren is based at the
Department of Psychology,
Grenfell Campus, Memorial
University of
Newfoundland, Corner
Brook, Canada. Mark Snow
is based at the Faculty of
Social Science and
Humanities, Ontario Tech
University, Oshawa,
Canada. HeidiAbbottis
based at the Department
Psychology, Grenfell
Campus, Memorial University
of Newfoundland, Corner
Brook, Canada.
Received 14 July 2021
Revised 25 September 2021
18 October 2021
27 April 2022
Accepted 28 April 2022
This research was primarily
supported by the Memorial
University Undergraduate
Career Experience
Programme. The authors would
like to thank all of those who
participated in the project.
Note: This paper was
presented as a poster at the
2018 American Psychology
Law Society Conference in
Memphis Tennessee.
DOI 10.1108/JCP-07-2021-0030 VOL. 12 NO. 3 2022, pp. 33-45, ©Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 2009-3829 jJOURNAL OF CRIMINAL PSYCHOLOGY jPAGE 33
To continue reading
Request your trial