Opinion ID: 2622
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Credibility Determination at Suppression Hearing

Text: Iodice's second argument on appeal is that FBI Special Agent James McCarthy's testimony at the suppression hearing was not credible, and that the District Court therefore erred in relying upon this testimony in making its determination that the evidence was admissible. We review the factual findings of a district court for clear error. See United States v. Rommy, 506 F.3d 108, 128 (2d Cir.2007), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 1681, ___ L.Ed.2d ___ (2008). A finding is clearly erroneous when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. United States v. Sash, 396 F.3d 515, 521 (2d Cir.2005). [W]here there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder's choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous. Id. When, as here, credibility determinations are at issue, we give particularly strong deference to a district court finding. See United States v. Gaines, 457 F.3d 238, 243 (2d Cir.2006). Iodice focuses on three purported inconsistencies in McCarthy's various accounts of the events surrounding Iodice's arrest. First, in his affidavit dated April 17, 2002, accompanying his application for a warrant to search Iodice's home, McCarthy characterized his search of the contents of the bag Iodice was carrying when arrested as a search incident to arrest. However, McCarthy did not specify precisely when or where he conducted this search. In his affidavit submitted to the District Court at the suppression hearing, McCarthy stated that he conducted a standard inventory search of the contents of the bag back at the FBI office after Iodice had been arrested. Second, McCarthy described Iodice walking from his house to his van when he was arrested in the first affidavit, but, in the second affidavit, he described Iodice standing next to the van in the second affidavit. Finally, McCarthy did not mention until his suppression hearing affidavit that Iodice, upon being arrested, had asked McCarthy to give him a pill from the medicine bottle in the bag. The different details identified by Iodice do not appear to be inconsistent with each other, and to the extent that one views them as such, the District Court did not commit clear error in nonetheless crediting McCarthy's testimony. Indeed, we have held that seemingly inconsistent testimony need not render a witness not credible. See Mathie v. Fries, 121 F.3d 808, 811-12 (2d Cir.1997) (accepting district court's credibility finding despite inconsistencies in witness's testimony). Here, McCarthy appears to have simply provided different levels of detail regarding his recollection of the events of April 17, 2002. Therefore, we reject Iodice's challenge to the judgment of the District Court on this ground.