### *Th e Hon. Bruce M. Van Sickle, United States District Judg e

for the District of North Dakota, sitting by designation. The Hon. Charles B. Kornmann, United States District Judg e 1 

### for the District of South Dakota. _____________ No. 95-3706SD

_____________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * On Appeal from the United v. * States District Court * for the District of * South Dakota. E.R.B., * * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: May 14, 1996 Filed: June 12, 1996

___________ Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge, MAGILL, Circuit Judge, and VAN SICKLE, District Judge.

*

___________ RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge.
The appel lant, whom we shall call E.R.B. because he is a minor, was convic ted of aggravated sexual abuse in violation of 18 U.S.C
. § 2241(a)(1), 18 U.S.C. § 2246(2)(A), and 18 U.S.C. § 2246(2)(B). Th e Distric t Court sentenced the defendant to be imprisoned during the ter m 1 of his minority, whic h, in this case, amounted to a term of a little less than two years. The defendant

### -2-

appeals, arguing that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to support the verdict. We affirm.
Appellant was charged with engaging in sexual acts with a fourteenyear-old girl. The f act of intercourse was admitted. The major disputed issue at trial was whether the sexual acts were consensual. The victi m testified that she wa s forcibly raped. On appeal, E.R.B. argues that the victim 's testimony was not credible. As appellant's brief says , "[c]redibilityis the core issue in this case." Brief for Appellant 10. Appellant argues that the victim's testimony tha t they had not had a prior sexual relationship was unbelievable, because tw o witnesses testified that they had seen the victim under the covers with E.R.B. on a previou s occasion. The victim testified that she was so upset by the rape that she didn't want to be around males, even her little brother, but, according to appel lant, other evidence showed that within three or four days of th e alleged incident she was dating another man. Appellant also argues that the District Court did not have a sufficient basis for failing to credit certain defense witnesses. He points, in particular, to the followin g senten ce in the District Court's opinion: "Although they [defens e witnesses] testified that they would not lie for defendant, eye contact an d smiles indicated a good deal of support for him." United States v. E.R.B. , CR No. 95-30050 (D.S.D. Mem. Op. filed September 26, 1995), p. 5.
We are not persuaded by these argume nts. In this juvenile case, the District Court sat as the finder of fact, much as a jury does in ordinary crimin al prosecutions. It is our duty to uphold the findings of th e District Court unless they are clearly erroneous , and we are not convinced that this exacting standard has been met. It is preeminently the job of the finder of fact, j udge or jury, to weigh the credibility of witnesses, including their demeanor on the stand and any co ntradictions between their testimonyand other evidence. The District Court obviously believed the victim's testimony. There is nothing wrong with using

### -3-

the demeanor of witnesses, including their looks and smiles towards either party, to assess their credibility. We have no way of knowing, of course, which way witnesses looked while they were testifying, or whether the y smiled. Precisely for this reason, we should be very slow to substitute our inclinations, if we had any, which we do not , for the District Court's reactions to live testimony. A finding based on the credibility of live witnesses can almost never be clearly erroneous. In this case, for the rea sons we have given and for those discussed at greater length in the Distric t Court's helpful opinion, we are convinced that this standard is far from being met. Accordingly, the judgment is
Affirmed.
A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.