The defendant claimed to have been watching a movie alone on the night of the murder. Straight away, this raises a red flag. If there was no one else there at the all-night movie theater, then no one can corroborate the young man's story. How very convenient! Also, why can't he remember the name of the film? I'm pretty sure that if most of us went to the cinema to watch a movie we'd at least be able to remember its name, even if—or especially if—it was a really bad one. Juror no.4 is absolutely right to insist that the boy's alibi is flimsy, especially when you consider that no eyewitnesses have stepped forward to substantiate his whereabouts at the time of the killing.
On the face of it, it would seem that the defendant doesn't have a hope in hell of avoiding the death penalty. Yet his alibi is so weak it almost has to be true. If the defendant were really guilty, then we might think he'd be able to come up with a more convincing alibi. This fact alone may not be sufficient to acquit, but at the very least it does provide food for thought.