Opinion ID: 721951
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Quarreling Over Pearl Street

Text: 36 Davis also attacks the comment by the district court that He never answered that. Instead of that, he quarreled with you about how close Pearl Street was. Davis contends that this denigrated his testimony by describing it as quarrelsome. Davis argues that this comment constitutes plain error since it affected his substantial rights due to the fact that this case boiled down to a credibility battle between Davis and Ms. Reynolds. 37 We fail to see how this could have affected, in any real sense, the jury's credibility evaluation. First, the discussion at issue appears to have been minor banter in a trial that stretched over three days. Second, the jury's credibility determination and apparent disbelief in Davis' testimony are supported by a substantial amount of evidence; this one comment clearly was not the determining factor. Third, any error in this comment was not plain error. Fourth, even if error, it was cured by the judge's instructions to the jury. 38 Davis' rights were not substantially affected by this comment either.