Opinion ID: 3013525
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Charles’ Confession

Text: Charles next contends that the District Court erred by denying his motion to suppress his confession, which was allegedly obtained by the police who failed to advise him of his Miranda rights. “This Court reviews the District Court's denial of a motion to suppress for clear error as to the underlying factual findings and exercises plenary review of the District Court's application of the law to those facts.” United States v. Perez, 280 F.3d 318, 336 (3d Cir. 2002). During the suppression hearing, the District Court weighed the conflicting factual recitations of Officer Tyson, who testified that he read Charles his rights, and Charles, who denied that he was informed of his rights. The District Court concluded that Charles had been read his Miranda rights, and furthermore that he made a knowing, willing and 6 voluntary waiver of those rights. “It is the law of this Circuit, as well as many others, that a fact-finder's determination of credibility is not subject to appellate review.” Gov’t of the V.I. v. Gereau, 502 F.2d 914, 921 (3d Cir. 1974). Accordingly, we uphold the credibility determination of the District Court, and its decision to deny the motion to suppress. See, e.g., United States v. Harris, 507 F.2d 197, 198 (3d Cir. 1975).