Judging credibility is considered by some to be an art. One veteran trial judge had the following to say about judging credibility:
“With respect to the oral testimony of the witnesses I have heard and observed, I am entitled to believe the whole or a part, or to disbelieve the whole or a part, of the testimony of any witness, and to weigh the evidential value of the testimony that I find acceptable and believable, and therefore, credible. Credibility concerns, generally, the assessment and weighing of the testimony of a witness. It is in essence, believability; the recognition of a witness’s worthiness to be believed; the truthfulness of his testimony. Testimony that is not plausible or reasonable in itself may be rejected on that basis alone, that is, that it is not plausible or reasonable and, therefore, not worthy of belief.
There are numerous factors to be considered in determining credibility generally, and no real set of rules to follow. It is a matter in which many human characteristics, both strong and weak, must be taken into consideration. Ultimately, the task is left to good common sense and the accumulated wisdom and experience of years of ordinary, everyday living. In assessing the credibility of a witness generally, the Court may consider the integrity and intelligence of the witness, and the witness’s appearance of sincerity and truthfulness in the witness stand; whether the witness was candid, frank and fair, forthright and responsive to questions asked or evasive or hesitant; and whether the witness was biased or had a personal interest or lack of personal interest in the outcome of the trial. More specifically, the Court may consider the witness’s memory, the capacity to remember, and the ability to describe clearly what was seen and heard; whether or not the witness has any particular reason to assist him in recalling the precise event and what was said; and whether or not there were inconsistencies in the witness’s testimony at trial, or in what the witness said at trial and on a prior occasion under oath or otherwise. Innocent discrepancies in minor matters are often unimportant. Discrepancies portrayed in detail on relevant matters may be deemed to be something more than innocent discrepancies, and they must be looked at very carefully in assessing credibility.”