4.6 Article

Camera footage and identification testimony undermine the availability of exculpatory alibi evidence

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 18, Issue 10, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0289376

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study revealed that the written confirmation of alibi evidence is weaker when participants are confronted with incriminating evidence such as camera footage or identification testimony, but there is no difference in oral confirmation. Surprisingly, the confirmation rates were the same for camera footage and identification evidence, although they were higher in session 1 compared to session 2. These findings highlight the impact of these types of evidence on the availability of alibi evidence in court and stress the importance of documenting evidence contamination.
The present field experiment investigated how alibi witnesses react when confronted with camera footage or identification testimony that incriminates an innocent suspect. Under the pretext of a problem-solving study, pairs of participants (N = 109) and confederates worked on an individual task with a dividing wall obstructing their view of each other. When the mobile phone of the experimenter was missing from an adjacent room at the end of the session, all participants confirmed that the confederate had not left the room. After several days, participants returned to the lab for a second session. They were asked to confirm their corroboration, orally and in writing, after learning that the confederate either had been identified from a photograph or was present on camera footage. A control group received no evidence. In this second session, written (but not oral) alibi corroboration was weaker in the incriminating evidence conditions (47%) than the no-evidence condition (81%), as hypothesized. Unexpectedly, corroboration was equally strong in the camera and identification evidence conditions. As expected, alibi corroboration was stronger in session 1 than in session 2 for both camera (89% and 31-46%) and identification evidence conditions (86% and 31-49%). The current findings provide first evidence that camera footage and eyewitness identification testimony can bear on the availability of exculpatory alibi evidence in court and emphasize the need to document incidents of evidence contamination.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available