The officers\u2019 testimony is credited, and the defense cross didn\u2019t make it better. \u201cThe inconsistencies, which in the Court’s view, were de minimis, were sought to be established by photographs of isolated portions of the living room and of Smith’s bedroom which were of questionable relevance. Frequently overlooked in a critical evaluation of such cross examination as they purport to undermine the credibility of a witness, is that the minutiae they inquire about occurred, as they did in this case, almost two years ago and inconsistencies are inevitable. Some might regard a precise minute by minute, inch by inch recall after such a time lapse with suspicion.\u201d United States v. Smith, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72750 (E.D.N.Y. June 3, 2016).*<\/p>\n
A traffic offense justified defendant\u2019s stop, and the officer smelled marijuana as he approached it. The officer \u201ccarefully looked\u201d through defendant\u2019s wallet and found gift cards and credit cards in the name of others. He was not required to accept defendant\u2019s explanations at face value given that defendant lied to him twice already. There was probable cause for arrest for identity theft. United States v. Cassiberry, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70349 (N.D.Ind. May 31, 2016).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The officers\u2019 testimony is credited, and the defense cross didn\u2019t make it better. \u201cThe inconsistencies, which in the Court’s view, were de minimis, were sought to be established by photographs of isolated portions of the living room and of Smith’s … Continue reading