Opinion ID: 681024
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Credibility of the Evidence

Text: 9 As to the quality of the evidence, Alaniz contends that the testimony of the government's sole witness in the revocation proceedings was vacillating, contradictory, and wholly unreliable. We need not examine this issue. 10 The government submitted the affidavit of Rolando G. Longoria to support the charge that Alaniz conspired to possess marihuana. 11 At the hearing, Longoria testified that he travelled with his father (Longoria Sr.) and Alaniz from Texas to Michigan. The Longorias met Alaniz in Rio Grande, followed him to another home, and met two other people. The Longorias and Alaniz travelled together, and the other couple drove a grey van. Longoria testified that at some point, the vehicles were separated. 12 Longoria further testified that the police stopped his vehicle in Illinois. While they were stopped, a police dog alerted causing the officers to the possibility of contraband and they searched the vehicle. Longoria testified that both his father and Alaniz got kind of nervous, and that when he asked his father what was wrong, his father replied that they had 50 pounds in the van. In response to questions from the prosecutor, Longoria clarified that 50 pounds referred to marihuana and that they referred to his father and Alaniz. The court then asked whether Longoria Sr. (the witness's father) had stated specifically that Homero [Alaniz] and I have 50 pounds. The following exchange took place between the court and Longoria: 13 THE COURT: He mentioned Homero Alaniz's name? 14 THE WITNESS: Yes, he did. 15 THE COURT: And how was--why [sic] was it that he said exactly? 16 THE WITNESS: He goes, have you--he asked me if I had seen the gray van and I asked why. And he goes, well, because we have 50 pounds in the van. 17 THE COURT: But, the question remains, did he mention Homero Alaniz-- 18 THE WITNESS: Yes, he did. 19 THE COURT: --or he said we and you assumed-- 20 THE WITNESS: No, no, he didn't say we, he said me and Homero have 50 pounds in the van. 21 Longoria testified that after the search of the vehicle, they were released and continued to Coldwater. Upon their arrival, Jesse Villasenor informed Alaniz that his people in the gray van had been calling. Villasenor and Alaniz then left the house and the raid occurred thirty minutes later. Longoria testified that his father had been convicted on two prior occasions for importing/exporting marijuana, and that his father currently was incarcerated in Oklahoma. On cross examination, Longoria testified that he did not hear his father and Alaniz discuss marihuana at all. The only marihuana he saw was a joint that he saw his father smoke. He testified that he did not see any marihuana in the van, and that the police never picked up either the van or the alleged 50 pounds. 22 Based on this testimony, the court found that Alaniz had violated standard condition number one of his supervised release by knowingly and intentionally conspiring with Longoria Sr. to possess marihuana with the intent to distribute it. 23 It is not this Court's function to pass on a district court's determination regarding the credibility of the witness. 5 We may find testimony to be incredible as a matter of law, if the witness testifies to facts that he physically could not have observed or events that could not have occurred under the laws of nature. 6 Short of that, we exercise great deference to a district court's credibility findings. Longoria was present on the trip to Michigan, so it is entirely possible that he had the conversation to which he testifies. Further, such a conversation is entirely possible under the laws of nature. Hence, we defer to the judgment of the district court that Longoria's testimony was credible.