A case recently came down from the court of appeals for the second circuit reiterating the long established rule that credibility of witnesses is left to the jury. The court cannot judge credibility and defendants cannot appeal their conviction on the basis that an informant may be lying or exaggerating. A defendant does not get two bites of the credibility apple. If a jury believes an informant who may be lying about the circumstances of the crime, that is the end of the matter. But jurors are not easily fooled.
In US v. Coté, the district court judge decided that the testimony of several witnesses greatly exaggerated the crime in question. As a result the district court stated that it was, “not satisfied that competent, satisfactory and sufficient evidence in the record supported the jury’s finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” The court went on to say “the testimony was patently incredible” and that there was a “real concern that an innocent person may have been convicted.”
However, the second circuit court of appeals did not agree and determined “the jury was entitled to reject the extreme of the testimony and conclude that the truth lay somewhere in between.” The court went on to say that, “none of the testimony in this case was incredible as a matter of law. Rather, the differences in testimony presented a question of credibility for the jury.”