CA6: Clearly erroneous explained again

Crediting the officers’ testimony that defendant consented to a patdown that produced a sawed-off shotgun was not clearly erroneous. United States v. Oldham, 506 Fed. Appx. 465 (6th Cir. 2012). Clearly erroneous explained:

The district court did not commit clear error in crediting the officers’ testimony that the encounter and pat-down search were consensual. Nothing in the officers’ reports, in their testimony, or in any evidence contradicts their version of the events.

There ‘can virtually never be clear error’ where the ‘trial judge’s finding is based on [her] decision to credit the testimony of one of two or more witnesses, each of whom has told a coherent and facially plausible story that is not contradicted by extrinsic evidence,’ and where that finding is ‘not internally inconsistent.’

Brooks v. Tennessee, 626 F.3d 878, 897 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, N.C., 470 U.S. 564, 575 (1985)). The district judge credited the officers’ testimony, which is uncontradicted by anything but Oldham’s testimony. That determination cannot constitute clear error.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.