How much weight does an alibi provided by a doorman carry?

April 27, 2015 6:24 PM

Simple question: in a court of law (or investigation leading up to trial), in the U.S. let's say (for the sake of argument), how much weight does the alibi testimony given by a doorman/front desk concierge of the person of interest's apartment building of residence carry? Equal to that of a random person's? More, or less, than that of a friend's or a spouse's? Completely dependent on the players involved? Are alibi testimonies weighted at all? Out of curiosity spurred on by recent events.
posted by war wrath of wraith to Law & Government (16 answers total)

Are you referring to the Durst case/HBO doc? In that case, the doorman didn't actually provide an alibi; the papers reported that he did, but he did not. The inference from the doc is that the reporters were fed the story by Durst's friend. The cop involved in the case explicitly said at one point that the doorman never said he saw the missing wife that night.

So it's not that the doorman piped up and said he saw her and the cops were like, "well, then, case closed, if the doorman backs it up, then nothing more to investigate here."

The incompetence of the initial investigation of his wife's disappearance --- especially when one considers the amount of power and influence the Durst family could have brought to bear if they chose --- suggests something rotten in Denmark, IMO. That cop they interviewed was practically a parody of a corrupt cop from a 70s movie.
posted by maggiepolitt at 6:41 PM on April 27, 2015 [4 favorites]

Credibility is determined with reference to several criteria. For example, is the witness generally a truthful person (credibility) and are they telling the truth in this instance (reliability)? The evidence of all witnesses is weighed on this scale. A doorman might be less reliable because they are not as familiar with what the deceased looked like and therefore could not be 100% certain that was who they saw in the door, as opposed to a friend who saw them and said hello. If the doorman has a history of lying, was potentially paid for his testimony, etc - these are all factors as well.
posted by hepta at 6:48 PM on April 27, 2015

Response by poster: Are you referring to the Durst case/HBO doc?

Actually, just to nip that in the bud, no, my question has nothing to do with that show which I'm only vaguely aware of as a documentary series, and know next to nothing about.
posted by war wrath of wraith at 6:50 PM on April 27, 2015

As I understand it, evaluating the weight and trustworthiness of evidence in a criminal case in the United States is the job of the jury. Certainly, deciding whether or not witnesses are telling the truth is ultimately their job. This is what it means that the jury is the "finder of fact". So it really depends on them.
posted by goingonit at 6:50 PM on April 27, 2015 [1 favorite]

A general legal principle in U.S. law is that every witness is presumed to be telling the truth. That presumption can be rebutted by competent and credible evidence. Beyond that basic principle, it is up to the factfinder (jury in a jury trial, judge in a bench trial) to determine the credibility of a witness. There is no scoring system that would allow one to answer the question of how much weight a doorman's testimony carries; a doorman is a witness who the jury will evaluate (by demeanor, consistency of testimony, whether they have been impeached on the stand, etc.) and determine his or her credibility. You can't say "a priest's testimony is worth more than a doorman's" for example. It is up to the jurors to determine credibility for themselves.
posted by jayder at 6:51 PM on April 27, 2015 [1 favorite]

A general legal principle in U.S. law is that every witness is presumed to be telling the truth.

Well, this is not a presumption as a matter of law. It just something that makes sense because otherwise, why ever call anyone as a witness?

To the OP's question, the jury can give whatever weight they want to anyone's testimony. There is no principle of law that some class of witness is to be given more or less weight than another class of witness.

Source: IAAL
posted by Tanizaki at 6:52 PM on April 27, 2015 [9 favorites]

As a practical matter, a US building with a doorman is likely to have security cameras. If the footage is retrieved in time, it may well corroborate the doorman's testimony. While a jury can weigh testimony however it wants (and it doesn't have to disclose who it believes and why), they are certainly more likely to believe testimony that is at least partially consistent with other evidence.
posted by zachlipton at 7:02 PM on April 27, 2015

Hm, let's see. IAAL but of course this is not legal advice or an opinion. But, in a purely general way, the weight of a doorman's testimony could depend a great deal on the examination (direct or cross) by the attorney at a deposition or in the courtroom.

For example, if you were trying to establish the alibi, you would do everything to bolster the doorman's credibility. You'd ask questions that make him sympathetic - about how long he's had his job, what his experience with the person in question is, what kind of personal attention he pays to people coming and going - really, a retired police officer? After 25 years on the force? With no complaints filed against him? Being a doorman now to keep his building safe because his zillion grandchildren live there with their widowed mothers and a thousand kittens? You'd also try to undermine reliance on witnesses countering the alibi - ask about their eyesight, if they were drinking or doing drugs, or why else they might have been near the scene of a crime.

If you were crossing the doorman, you'd ask similar questions - does he drink? Does he hate his job and all the people in the building? Didn't he once argue with the accused, and threaten to ruin him? Does he not, indeed, sleep on the job as evidenced by this eight-hour security tape? In either approach, you would try to balance it against the testimony by other players (his wife is legally blind! and a diagnosed compulsive liar! and his friend is having an affair with the blind lying wife and therefore has all kinds of reasons to see him locked up forever!)

Other than that, it's up to a jury, like jayder said above, to weigh credibility and demeanor. A witness's demeanor as interpreted by a jury is pretty sacrosanct on review because they are the peers in the room using their good sense. It would only be set aside if it were against the great weight of the evidence - for example, every other witness's testimony, clear video, or clear evidence of witness tampering or intimidation.

Of course, this is all theoretical. I have no idea what the Durst case is; TINLA and so on.
posted by mibo at 7:19 PM on April 27, 2015 [2 favorites]

To provide some color on the jurors determining whom to believe -- I was recently called up for jury duty and much of the voir dire consisted of questions to find out how credible jurors were likely to find various witnesses based on their race, profession, etc. Several people got struck from the jury pool by the defense for saying that they would find a police officer's testimony to be more credible than a civilian's, for example.
posted by phoenixy at 7:24 PM on April 27, 2015

Factors affecting
the credibility
of Witnesses.
posted by alms at 8:16 PM on April 27, 2015

Response by poster: Actually, I was really thinking more along the lines of practical reliability - as in, doormen/concierges have clear shifts; they can be reasonably relied upon to be at a certain spot during certain hours. As it is pretty much their job to know who goes in and out, and (ignoring surveillance footage for the moment) it being pretty much guaranteed that they would've been at x place at y time, I wondered if a positive testimony ("I, as the building doorman of Building X during Y hours, do declare without any doubt that Mr. Z did enter the building at exactly h:mm hours") would be fairly ironclad, barring any extraordinary circumstances (known to be a drunk/nod off on the job, chummy with the person of interest, etc.)
posted by war wrath of wraith at 8:23 PM on April 27, 2015

As it is pretty much their job to know who goes in and out

In most normal residential buildings (with doormen), it is their job to let the right people in, keep the wrong people out, and assist visitors and deliveries. They aren't keeping a record of everybody who comes in and out with the exact times. Ask a doorman/building concierge if Steve came by 20 minutes ago, they might remember. Ask about 4:35 p.m. three weeks ago Wednesday, their recollection may be far more limited.
posted by zachlipton at 8:30 PM on April 27, 2015 [4 favorites]

The jury decides who to believe. There are no legal presumptions about this. No instructions from the judge about how to weigh a doorman's testimony compared to someone else. It depends entirely on the witnesses and their testimony, and how those are perceived by the jurors.
posted by J. Wilson at 9:01 PM on April 27, 2015 [2 favorites]

A general legal principle in U.S. law is that every witness is presumed to be telling the truth.

That may be true in some states, but in my jurisdiction, I've never heard of that principle before now. I don't see judges instructing juries to presume that witnesses are telling the truth. The answer to the OP's question is that any witness's testimony will carry as much or as little weight as a jury decides to give it under the circumstances.
posted by John Cohen at 9:45 PM on April 27, 2015 [1 favorite]

From a real-life standpoint, from cases in which I am familiar, juries decide on a story and then decide who to believe or not to believe to fit that story. Often it is the story presented by the prosecutor. There are many cases where people have alibi witnesses that say they did not commit the crime, but that doesn't help.
In the case of the West Memphis Three, Jason Baldwin his brother Matthew was unequivocal in saying "he was with me." (In this case not used in court mostly due to the incompetence of the defense lawyer.)
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 5:35 AM on April 28, 2015

This question, unfortunately, is very hard to answer, as in a jury trial, a person's credibility is at stake, and how they presented their testimony and how they personally appear will heavily influence jury decision.

If the doorman appear in his normal "uniform" he would be more credible than a random Joe Schmoe, esp. because the jury will believe he can tell who normally comes in and out the place he watches vs. someone he'd never seen before.

IMHO, of course.
posted by kschang at 9:53 AM on April 28, 2015