Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

kuzcoduck t1_j5icojn wrote

Reply to comment by AutoModerator in [WP] A bar called “The Alibi” that’s notorious for being just that.. an alibi. Often packed with ex-cons, the customers of The Alibi adhere to a silent, but strict, code: If they say they were here, we saw them. They’ll always back an alibi, no questions asked. by JelloStaplerr

Pretty bad name if you ever want to convince a jury or a judge that you were actually there

44

ThrowdoBaggins t1_j5ip5fa wrote

Sure, but if you’re on the stand it’s only ever your own word. The point of the bar is that if you say you were there, the bartender and other patrons will also say you were there, so then you’ve got maybe dozens of people going on the stand and verifying the alibi.

As long as eye-witness testimony has any weight at all, this idea holds up.

18

kuzcoduck t1_j5ir2i9 wrote

Not necessarily, a smart lawyer could expose the system by having these people say they saw him too, after which he would prove he wasn’t there - nullifying all „Alibi bar“ eye witness accounts

25

ThrowdoBaggins t1_j5j95ec wrote

I think even if the jury was explicitly told of the reputation of the venue, that wouldn’t lead to a guilty verdict. It’s not enough to have a general reputation of giving false alibis, you need to disprove each one each time. Jury members aren’t allowed to vote guilty or not guilty based on vibes, or reputation, only on the admissible evidence of the case.

14

Phage0070 t1_j5lsq73 wrote

> Jury members aren’t allowed to vote guilty or not guilty based on vibes, or reputation, only on the admissible evidence of the case.

But impeaching the character of a witness is allowed because making their testimony untrustworthy is relevant to the claim. In this case the prosecution would be trying to show that the testimony of all the ex-cons at "The Alibi" is not trustworthy to provide an alibi, and that would be pretty easy.

2

ThrowdoBaggins t1_j5mgxx6 wrote

But you’re making my claim for me — it’s not enough to say the venue has a reputation, you need to demonstrate that for every person who takes the stand.

Again, juries don’t vote on vibes, the phrase is “beyond reasonable doubt” so even putting some doubt into the minds of the jurors might be enough to allow the alibi.

1

pandadogunited t1_j5kdtw7 wrote

They aren’t supposed to, but juries aren’t supposed to engage in jury nullification either.

1

Zekromaster t1_j5j1pa7 wrote

> Not necessarily, a smart lawyer could expose the system by having these people say they saw him too, after which he would prove he wasn’t there - nullifying all „Alibi bar“ eye witness accounts

Doesn't matter. There's a non-zero chance maybe this time they're not lying? Reasonable doubt.

You have to prove the specific eye witness account is fake, you can't just say "But people who visit that bar are liars!"

9

Manger-Babies t1_j5iz1w0 wrote

Couldn't they just ask what the person was wearing and everyone would give different answers??

2

ThrowdoBaggins t1_j5j9z1d wrote

Sure, but that’s a) consistent with how flimsy eyewitness testimony is even under the best of conditions, and b) not how cross examination works in the court room?

12

TwoForSlashing t1_j5lb0sj wrote

This is also the name of the bar I was at last Sunday for football games. I kid you not!

1