Court Opinion

ID: 9461066
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:05:04.53955+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:36:52.585133
License: Public Domain

WALLACE, Circuit Judge
(specially concurring):
I concur with my Brother Choy except for the restrictions I believe he places on our language in United States v. Cis-neros, 448 F.2d 298, 305 (9th Cir. 1971). In that case we indicated that the trier of fact’s disbelief of a defendant’s testimony may, in part, provide the basis for a finding contrary to that which the defendant has stated. See opinion of Judge Choy, page 573 and n. 4. I would go no further than to state what was held in United States v. Hood, 493 F.2d 677 (9th Cir. 1974) :
Further, both Hoods testified, denying any knowledge of the heroin. Disbelief of their sworn testimony, along with other evidence, can be the basis of a finding that they in fact possessed the requisite knowledge. See United States v. Cisneros, 448 F.2d 298, 305 (9th Cir. 1971).
Whether the testimony of a defendant or any other witness has a ring of genuineness or not often becomes most significant in finding where the truth lies. That this touchstone is difficult to review on appeal does not militate against *575its fundamental importance in ascertaining what the actual facts are. I would, therefore, not restrict the applicability of Cisneros as I feel Judge Choy has.
As this difference does not affect the outcome of this particular case and as I am in harmony with the remainder of Judge Choy’s opinion, I concur.