*The Hon. Bruce M. Van Sickle, United States District Judge

for the District of North Dakota, sitting by designation.

 The Hon. Charles B. Kornmann, United States District Judge

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 appellant, whom we shall call E.R.B. because he is a minor, was

convicted 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). The

District Court sentenced the defendant to be imprisoned during the term

1

of his minority, which, 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 fact of intercourse was admitted. The major disputed

issue at trial was whether the sexual acts were consensual. The victim

testified that she was forcibly raped. On appeal, E.R.B. argues that the

victim's testimony was not credible. As appellant's brief says,

"[c]redibility is the core issue in this case." Brief for Appellant 10.

Appellant argues that the victim's testimony that they had not had a prior

sexual relationship was unbelievable, because two witnesses testified that

they had seen the victim under the covers with E.R.B. on a previous

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

appellant, other evidence showed that within three or four days of the

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 following

sentence in the District Court's opinion: "Although they [defense

witnesses] testified that they would not lie for defendant, eye contact and

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 arguments. In this juvenile case, the

District Court sat as the finder of fact, much as a jury does in ordinary

criminal prosecutions. It is our duty to uphold the findings of the

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, judge or jury, to weigh the credibility of witnesses,

including their demeanor on the stand and any contradictions between their

testimony and 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 they

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 reasons we have given and for

those discussed at greater length in the District 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.