Opinion ID: 201968
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Disputed Finding of Fact

Text: The only factual finding by the district court that Jones seems to contest is that Moriarty had seen from his cruiser the two men chasing Weaver down the street. A clear error exists only if, after considering all of the evidence, we are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. United States v. McCarthy, 77 F.3d 522, 529 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 991 (1996). '[W]here there is more than one plausible view of the -8- circumstances, the...court's choice among supportable alternatives cannot be clearly erroneous.' United States v. Tejada-Beltran, 50 F.3d 105, 110 (1st Cir. 1995) (quoting United States v. Ruiz, 905 F.2d 499, 508 (1st Cir. 1990)). The district court's finding that Moriarty, while still in the car, saw Weaver being chased by Jones and Whiteside is supported by Broderick's hearsay testimony that Moriarty had told him he had seen Weaver ahead of the two men in the direction in which they were running when the cruiser first turned onto Appleton Street. Because that testimony had been given at a suppression hearing, where the Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply in all their rigor, the court overruled the defendant's hearsay objection, and no appeal is specifically made from that ruling, although Jones insists that Weaver was seen only later, by Broderick, after the cruiser stopped and the officers split up. United States v. Schaefer, 87 F.3d 562, 570 (1st Cir. 1996); see also United States v. Bunnell, 280 F.3d 46, 49 (1st Cir. 2002). In any event, the court's finding based on Broderick's testimony of what Moriarty told him is not clearly erroneous.