Opinion ID: 3165215
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Alternatively, Remand Is Usually Required to

Text: Address a Lack of Factual Findings Even if we were to decide the district court did not make an explicit factual finding deemed somehow necessary, an appellate court is “not in the business of making findings of fact.” Forest Grove Sch. Dist. v. T.A., 638 F.3d 1234, 1238 (9th Cir. 2011). In fact, according to the Supreme Court, when a district court has not made the necessary findings of fact, “the usual rule is that there should be a remand for further proceedings to permit the trial court to make the missing findings.” Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 291–92 (1982). “The only exception to this rule is when the record permits only one resolution of the factual issue.” Sprint/United Mgmt. Co. v. Mendelsohn, 552 U.S. 379, 387 n.3 (2008). As previously stated, my reading of the record compels the conclusion that the district court found Cisneros did not testify truthfully. Therefore, remand rather than appellate fact finding is the only course. The majority offers two reasons for not remanding. First, the district judge who conducted the evidentiary hearing has since retired and, second, an appellate court must accept as true any statement offered by a witness which is not directly contradicted. The second reason cannot be right, and I am not aware of any law requiring a district court accept all testimony as credible. And as for the first reason, the majority posits the “district judge assigned the case on remand would be in no better position than we are to decide the factual UNITED STATES V. CISNEROS-RODRIGUEZ 33 question.” That is also an incorrect appellate standard of review. On remand, a different district judge may opt to take additional evidence, such as additional testimony from Cisneros and Linares.1 The district judge on remand may also seek additional documents which could either support or undermine Cisneros’s allegations. Simply, credibility is impossible to judge on appeal—on the paper record. The demeanor of witnesses is a critical advantage of the district court judge but not appellate judges. Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 365 (1991) (“As with the state of mind of a juror, evaluation of the prosecutor’s state of mind based on demeanor and credibility lies ‘peculiarly within a trial judge’s province.’”). And of course, it is not unheard of for a case to be assigned to a new district judge on remand. The fact that this particular district judge is no longer available to hear the case cannot support our foray into appellate fact finding.