Corroding Innocence: An Examination of Perceptions and Evaluations of Suspect Alibis Across the Investigative Timeline

Empirical studies have begun to assess the impact of contextual factors (e.g., evaluator role, crime type) on evaluations of alibi believability. Little is known about how such factors work together to impact alibi believability. The current study used a 2 (evaluator role: police investigator vs. juror) x 2 (alibi consistency: consistent vs. inconsistent) x 2 (crime seriousness: assault vs. murder) mixed factorial design. Mock investigators (n = 56) and mock jurors (n = 60) assessed fictitious case files that included alibi evidence. Results demonstrated that evaluator role did not significantly affect ratings of alibi strength or credibility, or suspect guilt. Consistent alibis elicited higher ratings of alibi strength and credibility, and lower ratings of guilt, compared to inconsistent alibis. Surprisingly, crime seriousness impacted ratings of suspect guilt such that assault cases enhanced ratings of guilt compared to murder cases. The implications for legal evaluator training and evidence dissemination are discussed.