Call us now:
The Case: Cochran v. State
In Cochran v. State (6th DCA) the Florida appellate court reversed a burglary and manslaughter conviction because the trial judge allowed a detective to improperly vouch for a key State witness’s credibility. The opinion reaffirmed one of the most fundamental principles in Florida criminal law: it is the jury—not the police—who decides whether a witness is telling the truth.
Richard Cochran was accused of being one of two masked intruders involved in a deadly home invasion. The prosecution’s case relied heavily on the testimony of a cooperating witness, Jessica Grier, who had received a plea deal in exchange for testifying that Cochran was her partner in the burglary. During trial, a detective testified that he believed Grier was a “credible witness” based on his investigation—effectively telling jurors whom to trust. Cochran’s attorney objected, arguing this was improper bolstering, but the trial judge allowed the testimony. Her testimony was crucial to the State’s case, and even more importantly, the defense was alleging that she was not only unbelievable, she in fact made up the accusation against Cochran to get revenge and had the means, motive, and opportunity to set up the whole thing.
On appeal, the court agreed that this was a serious error and not harmless. The conviction was reversed and remanded for a new trial.
The Law: Who Decides Credibility
Florida courts have long held that determining credibility is the exclusive province of the jury. Nearly seventy years ago, the Florida Supreme Court declared:
“There is no legal principle more firmly established in our system of jurisprudence than that which makes the jury the sole arbiter of the credibility of witnesses.”
— Barnes v. State, 93 So. 2d 863, 864 (Fla. 1957)
When a police officer, detective, or any other witness gives an opinion on whether someone else is telling the truth, it invades that sacred role of the jury. The State here tried to preserve the conviction by arguing that the police were not saying the witness was telling the truth now (at trial) but was saying her earlier pretrial statements were truthful (as if that made it any better). As the appellate court explained, testimony that a witness was “credible” or “telling truthful information” is improper regardless of whether it refers to trial testimony or pretrial statements. (Smith v. State, 292 So. 3d 46 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020); Lee v. State, 873 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)).
In Cochran, the detective’s repeated statements that he believed Grier’s story crossed that line. Because Grier’s testimony was the linchpin of the State’s case and the victims could not identify Cochran, the improper bolstering could easily have swayed the jury’s decision.
The Harmless Error Standard
Under State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986), the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an error did not contribute to the verdict. This is not about whether there was enough evidence to convict, but whether the improper testimony could have influenced the jury’s thinking. In Cochran, the appellate court found a “reasonable possibility” that the detective’s endorsement of Grier’s credibility affected the outcome—especially since the defense’s entire strategy was to challenge her motives and truthfulness.
As a result, the court reversed Cochran’s convictions and ordered a new trial.
Why This Matters for Every Defendant
This case is a critical reminder that law enforcement opinions are not evidence of guilt. Jurors must weigh the facts, not the personal beliefs of investigators. When police officers testify about whether they think a witness is truthful, they undermine the fairness of the trial and the defendant’s right to have guilt determined solely by the evidence.
For defense attorneys, preserving objections to improper “vouching” is vital. A single credibility comment from a detective can taint a jury’s verdict and, as in Cochran, lead to reversal on appeal.
Conclusion
The Cochran decision reinforces that credibility belongs to the jury, not the police. No matter how compelling the State’s witnesses may appear, the Constitution guarantees every defendant the right to a trial where jurors—guided by evidence and reason, not official opinion—decide the truth.
If you or someone you know has been accused of a crime in Florida, remember that every detail of your case matters, including how testimony is presented and challenged. At Landsman Law, we defend your rights at every stage
Why Retaining an Attorney Matters
Criminal Defense Lawyer Matt Landsman at Landsman Law helps people accused of crimes in Gainesville, Alachua County, Bradford County, Levy County, Gilchrist County, and surrounding areas of north Florida. If you need help for yourself or a loved one, contact Criminal Defense Attorney Matt Landsman for a free consultation today. For help with any Criminal Matter from Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer Matt Landsman – CALL NOW
If you’re accused of any criminal matter, retaining an attorney is critical to protecting your rights. These cases will involve constitutional questions and concern allegations of misconduct or are sensitive in nature, requiring a skill, preparation and experience. For expert legal help, contact Gainesville Defense Lawyer Matt Landsman to protect your rights today.