If, as Adams claims, he was dropped off in his motel at +- 10pm (2 and half hours before the murder) where he watched The Carol Burnett Show with his brother - why did his brother not testify in the trial? He should have had him as a witness. Why did his brother feel that he shouldn't have testified?
Adams' brother couldn't testify as an alibi witness because he was asleep when Adams got back to his hotel room.
shareAn attorney in the film addressed that question, explaining that the brother felt the cops had all the evidence they needed to convict Adams with or without the alibi, and testifying would only serve to put the brohter in jeopardy for a perjury charge. That sounded a bit weak to me, but plausible.
The brother originally told the police that he and his brother were not in Dallas on that day. Whether he lied or was mixed up on the day, if he later testified about being at the motel he would have looked like a liar. Also he was asleep when his brother got back to the motel.
shareHis brother DID testify. But his testimony was not credible enough to give Randall a good alibi. Errol Morris was asked about this and answered it in this 1989 TV interview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OU4HG2QAIrI&t=3m38s
Interesting. So, piecing it together and guesstimating, it sounds like the brother's testimony was perhaps that he *thinks/believes* Randall Adams came back when he claimed. That would be vague enough to avoid danger of perjury and unconvincing enough to be pretty much written off as real evidence.
shareThe cops could threaten him with a perjury charge if his brother is convicted. Basically tell him his brothers going down and they're gonna hit him with a perjury charge. Intimidate him into not testifying.
Plus it appears he probably didn't know because he was asleep and was just trying lie for his brother.