Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ThrowdoBaggins t1_j5j95ec wrote

Reply to comment by kuzcoduck 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

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