OKOT

v.

HAMMERSLEY ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Calderon, 127 F.3d 1314 (11th Cir. 1997)
  …sses] was credible. Because the testimony was not incredible as a matter of law, we must accept this determination by the jury. Id. at 1385-86 (citations omitted); See also United States v. Rivera, 775 F. 2d 1559, 1561 (11th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1051, 106 S.Ct. 1275, 89 L.Ed.2d 582 (1986). “For testimony of a government witness to be incredible as a matter of law, it must be ‘unbelievable on its face.’ ” Rivera, 775 F. 2d at 1561 (11th Cir.1985) (quoting United States v. Cravero, 530 F. 2d 666,…
• United States v. Jones, 913 F.2d 1552 (11th Cir. 1990)
  …urse of conduct." To find that Jones’s testimony was so inherently incredible it would have to be disregarded, we would have to find that it was "unbelievable on its face,” United States v. Rivera, 775 F. 2d 1559, 1561 (11th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1051, 106 S.Ct. 1275, 89 L.Ed.2d 582 (1986), or "so contrary to the teachings of human experience" that no rational person could believe it. United States v. Chancey, 715 F. 2d 543, 546 (11th Cir.1983). Jones’s testimony, while perhaps at times confused…
• United States v. Adler, 879 F.2d 491 (9th Cir. 1988)
  …meeting with Klein outside appellant’s hotel after Linn’s meeting with appellant, and other activities documented in the surveillance records). Inapposite for the same reason are United States v. Rivera, 775 F. 2d 1559 (11th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1051, 106 S.Ct. 1275, 89 L.Ed.2d 582 (1986), and United States v. Mims, 812 F. 2d 1068 (8th Cir.1987). Moreover, the telephone call in this case appears to have provided information [*497] which appellant did not previously possess and to have triggered…