Opinion ID: 2585223
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Credibility of Officer Hayden Bartholomew

Text: The Wassermans appear to argue that the trial court erred by finding that Officer Bartholomew was a credible witness. They argue that the court's rationale was flawed and that Officer Bartholomew's testimony was inconsistent with two of the court's factual findings. Under Alaska Civil Rule 52(a), [f]indings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses. Because of the unique ability of the trial court to assess credibility, this court consistently grants deference to trial courts where credibility is at issue. [8] The Wassermans highlight two inconsistencies between Officer Bartholomew's testimony and the court's findings on the issues of where Wasserman was standing when Officer Bartholomew entered the store and where Wasserman exited the check-out stands. However, the trial court did not adopt these portions of Bartholomew's testimony. It determined only that Trooper Roberts did not apply a choke hold to Wassermana finding that was corroborated by Hanson, Trooper Roberts, and Trooper Manns. The trial court's evaluation of Officer Bartholomew's credibility, therefore, is not clearly erroneous.