VI: Officer’s use of “legal buzz words” with “rote and mechanical” testimony and then memory failures leads trial court to conclude he’s not credible

The officer’s use of “legal buzz words” with “rote and mechanical” testimony and then memory failures leads trial court to conclude he’s not credible. People v. Stevens, 2018 V.I. LEXIS 70 (Super. Ct. July 26, 2018):

B. The Court finds that Sergeant Williams’ testimony is not credible.

The Court does not credit Williams’ testimony concerning his observations that allegedly led him to search Stevens and seize his firearm. First, based on the Court’s observation of Williams’ demeanor, his testimony appeared to be by rote and almost mechanical. Williams’ testimony did not appear to be coached, but rather a collection of legal buzz words designed to support an investigatory stop and frisk.

Second, Williams appeared to have trouble remembering the events. In explaining their actions, officers need to provide the Court with “specific and sufficient justification for their beliefs and activities … to persuade the Court that they were acting within the confines of the Constitution.” In recalling the events, Williams continuously made “conclusory recitations of key ‘buzz words’.” Williams stated that he observed Stevens making “furtive movements” around his waist area, which was “suspicious activity” that caused him to conduct a “brief pat-down for [Stevens’] safety and [Williams’] due to the area.” Williams could not remember the date or time of the events leading up to the arrest.

Third, Williams’ interest in the outcome is clearly outweighed by Stevens’. The Court recognizes that defendants in criminal cases have a greater stake in the outcome, however, “it would be manifestly unfair and highly improper for that overtly or subliminally to be the determinative factor in judging a defendant’s testimony.” Therefore, the Court reaches its credibility based on the totality of these factors and not just the consideration that Stevens has a greater interest in the outcome of the instant Motion.

Fourth, Gabriel’s testimony contradicted both his own and that of Williams during the course of the suppression hearing. The inability to recollect details accurately negatively impacts a witness’ credibility. Called as a rebuttal witness by the People, Gabriel stated that he recalled that he had a Glock pistol on his person that was not pointed at the males, but rather, in a “low ready” position, which means that the Glock was in a 45-degree angle towards the ground. However, when asked by the Court if he had a machine gun, Gabriel stated that he did not recall whether he carried a machine gun or a Glock. Gabriel also testified that he had tunnel vision while focusing attention on Cornelius while Williams handled Stevens.