Opinion ID: 1485
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Johnson's Argument

Text: Johnson argues Officer Willis, Officer Witzman, and Kegler provided unreasonable testimony that clearly does not support conviction on the charge set out in the indictment. Johnson claims that on May 14, 2008, he was a visitor at 4570 Davison when he heard a commotion and the police ordered everyone to get on the floor. Johnson maintains Officer Witzman had harassed Johnson in the past, and during the May 14, 2008 encounter, Officer Witzman tried to coerce [Johnson] into divulging information about firearms crimes. Johnson alleges, when he failed to provide such information, the officers charged him with possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute. Johnson implies Officer Witzman's and Officer Willis's testimony that they could see clearly activity occurring more than 150 [feet] away, is unreasonable. Johnson theorizes the officers could not have concluded Johnson was distributing cocaine base because the officers could not hear Johnson's conversation or see exchanges of any kind. Johnson also insists it is inexplicable how the officers could cover the distance from the officers' surveillance position to the 4570 Davison residence before Johnson could jump off the porch and runaway [sic], or Jones could hide or flush the cocaine base Jones allegedly possessed. Johnson further contends Kegler's testimony that Johnson had never been in Kegler's house is unreasonable because Johnson was able to render an exact layout of the interior of her home. Johnson is essentially challenging the credibility of the witnesses. Assessing witness credibility is the job of the jury and absent extraordinary circumstances..., we will not review that assessment. United States v. Wesseh, 531 F.3d 633, 637 (8th Cir.2008); see also United States v. Johnson, 519 F.3d 816, 822 (8th Cir.) (noting the jury's credibility determinations are `virtually unreviewable on appeal' (quoting United States v. Singh, 494 F.3d 653, 660 (8th Cir.2007))), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 199, 172 L.Ed.2d 159 (2008). Johnson's counsel had an opportunity to attack the credibility of the government's witnesses at trial, and the jury nevertheless accepted the witnesses' testimony as true. See United States v. Hill, 249 F.3d 707, 714 (8th Cir. 2001). Upon a thorough review of the record, we find no basis upon which to disturb the jury's credibility findings.