9

A common trope in crime dramas is that a suspect claims they were doing something alone at the time of a crime, leading to additional suspicion falling on them because they do not have witnesses to validate the alibi.

In a situation like this, is it still somehow possible to establish an unwitnessed act as a valid alibi for the purposes of conclusively eliminating someone as a suspect during the investigation? Or is it a core part of a valid alibi that you need a direct witness who can attest that you were doing what you said you were doing?

Nzall
  • 1,591
  • 11
  • 19

6 Answers6

32

In a situation like this, is it still somehow possible to establish an unwitnessed act as a valid alibi?

It may be possible. For example, there could be other evidence that would establish the veracity of the claim, such as phone records, surveillance camera footage, or a demonstration of knowledge that could only have been obtained by being in the claimed place at the claimed time. But this is more work for the investigators than simply calling the suspect's alibi witness to confirm the suspect's claims.

From a narrative point of view, an unwitnessed alibi is like any other uncorroborated evidence: it invites the audience to consider whether things are as they seem, and to wonder whether a witness or other corroborating evidence might arise later on, or whether the claimed alibi is actually a lie.

From an investigator's point of view, an alibi is primarily useful as a means of filtering out suspects, to avoid spending time investigating innocent people. If the alibi is uncorroborated, the detectives have to do more work (which helps the screenwriters), either to find corroborating evidence, to rule out that suspect on other grounds, or to develop sufficient evidence to charge the suspect with the crime.

phoog
  • 42,299
  • 5
  • 91
  • 143
12

This answers an earlier version of the question that was not about the investigative stage.

There is nothing special about an uncorroborated alibi. If the finder of fact (judge or jury) is left with a reasonable doubt about guilt, that calls for an acquittal.

Admissibility of an accused's own testimony does not depend on it being corroborated by a separate witness. See e.g. R. v. L.(J.A.), 2006 MBCA 107:

It is... illogical to argue that an accused’s denial of involvement in a crime is to be treated as non-existent if that denial is provided in the context of an uncorroborated alibi.

Here are standard jury instructions relating to an accused's alibi evidence (R. v. W.(D.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742; and R. v. Tomlinson, 2014 ONCA 158, para. 53):

i. ... there is no onus on the accused to prove an alibi;

ii. ... if the jury believes the alibi evidence, they must find the accused not guilty;

iii. ... even if the jury does not believe the alibi evidence, if they are left in a reasonable doubt by it, they must find the accused not guilty; and

iv. ... even if the alibi evidence does not raise a reasonable doubt about an accused’s guilt, the jury must determine, on the basis of all the evidence, whether Crown counsel has proven the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

You talk about a disbelieved alibi as "leading to additional suspicion falling on them." That would be a legal error. See R. v. Hibbert, 2002 SCC 39, para. 62:

Even if an alibi is advanced by the accused himself and is rejected, the finding that the alibi is untrue cannot serve to corroborate or complement the case for the prosecution, let alone permit an inference that the accused is guilty.

Jen
  • 87,647
  • 5
  • 181
  • 381
7

In theory, an alibi is never required. The presumption of innocence means that the court must acquit if there is a plausible explanation of the facts which leads to guilt and another plausible explanation which leads to innocence.

In practice, a suspect only becomes a defendant in a criminal case when the prosecution sees a likelihood of obtaining a conviction, and the court agrees to open the case -- either two separate officials failed in their duty or there is some evidence against the defendant. So if "the system" works properly, saying nothing in defense is a bad idea.

Not every possible "other explanation" is plausible. Yet the prosecution and court might not even think of some plausible explanation without a prompt by the defense. When the defense brings that up, it might well change their minds. For instance, the timestamp on this Stackexchange answer make support my claim that I'm at home right now more plausible. Not a sufficient defense if I was accused of a pre-planned bank robbery, but certainly significant if I was accused of a drunken brawl.

The court would look at my explanation ("alibi") in the context of all other evidence and either believe it or not.

o.m.
  • 22,932
  • 3
  • 45
  • 80
3

The accused is not required to prove his or her innocence. The prosecution has to prove your guilt (Beyond a reasonable doubt).

If you claim that you did not do the murder you are accused of because you were home alone, then the onus is on the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this was not the case.

In a situation like this, is it still somehow possible to establish an unwitnessed act as a valid alibi for the purposes of conclusively eliminating someone as a suspect during the investigation? Or is it a core part of a valid alibi that you need a direct witness who can attest that you were doing what you said you were doing?

An alibi is valid as a defense up until the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the alibi is wrong. Whether this alibi is witnessed by one person or a thousand still does not alleviate the prosecution of the burden of proof. Proof in a criminal context is reasonable doubt.

A common trope in crime dramas is that a suspect claims they were doing something alone at the time of a crime, leading to additional suspicion falling on them because they do not have witnesses to validate the alibi.

There is a presumption of innocence and an assumption of the credibility of witnesses. Unless prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt to the contrary or defense counsel can prove that the guilt standard has not been met.

What police suspect people are doing is of little importance. It is what they can prove you did that is the pertinent part. I'm sure the average police officer thinks most people they come into contact with is doing something wrong, but can they prove it.

Jen
  • 87,647
  • 5
  • 181
  • 381
Neil Meyer
  • 7,825
  • 1
  • 37
  • 81
3

In general, investigators are likely to give self-serving statements by a suspect relatively low credence. An uncorroborated alibi is like the suspect declaring "I didn't do it." Most people are expected to claim innocence, and say whatever they can to deflect suspicion from themselves.

But one aspect of becoming a good investigator is learning to evaluate whether people are telling the truth. If you're convincing when you describe your alibi, you may succeed at getting them to investigate someone else.

While corroboration from others is helpful, it may not be dispositive. Family or friends are not unlikely to lie to help the suspect.

Being alone in your alibi doesn't preclude providing corroboration in other ways. For instance, if you say you were home watching TV, describing what was going on in the show would help your case (although this is probably not as helpful now that we have DVRs and next-day streaming).

Barmar
  • 8,504
  • 1
  • 27
  • 57
1

If you have evidence where you were. Even if that evidence has no human witness.

“At 2am I was drunk locked up in a police cell”. No police officer saw you at 2am but one swears he put you in the cell 1:30am, you were definitely there at 2:30 am, and you couldn’t have left and returned around 2am.

gnasher729
  • 35,915
  • 2
  • 51
  • 94