Call us now:
In criminal trials, jurors—not police officers, forensic interviewers, prosecutors, or government witnesses—decide who is telling the truth. That principle is fundamental to Florida criminal law. But in a recent appellate decision, a Florida court reversed a conviction after prosecutors repeatedly introduced testimony and argument improperly endorsing the credibility of the alleged child victim. See Cosme v State – 2nd DCA.
The opinion serves as an important reminder that prosecutors and law enforcement cannot personally vouch for the truthfulness of a witness or place the “prestige of the government” behind testimony. This issue is especially significant in child molestation and sex offense prosecutions, where cases often turn almost entirely on witness credibility rather than physical evidence.
The Facts of the Case
The defendant was charged with two counts of lewd or lascivious molestation involving his goddaughter. According to the opinion, the child alleged abuse beginning around age eight and continuing until she disclosed the allegations at age ten to a school guidance counselor. She later repeated the allegations to a school resource officer and a child protection team interviewer.
Critically, there was no physical evidence of abuse. The appellate court emphasized that the child’s allegations were “the crux of the State’s case,” while the defense theory was that the allegations were fabricated.
Despite this, the State repeatedly elicited testimony from investigators and officers directly commenting on the child’s credibility.
Florida Law on Improper Bolstering
The appellate court explained the governing rule:
“It is elemental in our system of jurisprudence that the jury is the sole arbiter of the credibility of witnesses. Thus, it is an invasion of the jury’s exclusive province for one witness to offer his personal view on the credibility of a fellow witness.”
Florida courts have repeatedly held that witnesses—particularly police officers and child protection investigators—cannot testify that another witness appeared truthful, credible, honest, consistent, or free from deception.
The court further explained that this issue becomes particularly dangerous when law enforcement officers provide the bolstering testimony because jurors often view officers as “disinterested and objective and therefore highly credible.”
Every Example of Improper Credibility Bolstering Identified by the Court
The opinion contains multiple examples of testimony the appellate court found improper.
1. Child Protection Interviewer Testified He Saw “No” Deception
The prosecutor asked the child protection team interviewer:
“And in speaking with [the victim], were you able to discern any sort of motive of her to make this up or anything to that effect?”
The interviewer responded:
“Like deception?”
The prosecutor answered:
“Yes.”
The interviewer then testified:
“No.”
Why This Was Improper
The appellate court called the admission of this testimony a “clear abuse of discretion.”
This testimony improperly informed the jury that the interviewer believed the child was not lying. Determining deception is exclusively the jury’s role.
2. Interviewer Testified He “Found No Inconsistencies”
The State then continued questioning the interviewer:
“And was [the victim] resolute with her disclosure?”
The interviewer answered:
“I found no inconsistences.”
Why This Was Improper
The appellate court found this further compounded the error because it improperly communicated to jurors that the interviewer personally validated the allegations as internally consistent and therefore believable.
3. School Resource Officer “Truth Qualified” the Child
Deputy Shaun Duval testified:
“She answered the question appropriately, and the way she interacted and spoke, I feel that she knows the difference between telling the truth and a lie.”
Why This Was Improper
Florida appellate courts have repeatedly condemned testimony that a child was “truth qualified.” The court cited prior precedent holding that this type of testimony improperly suggests the officer assessed the child’s honesty and concluded the child was credible.
The jury alone must decide whether a witness is truthful.
4. Officer Testified He Saw “No Signs of Deception”
Deputy Duval also testified:
“I did not see any signs of deception with her.”
Why This Was Improper
The appellate court held this was direct vouching for the child’s credibility.
The opinion emphasized that credibility endorsements from law enforcement are particularly harmful because jurors often give police testimony substantial weight. The court cited precedent stating:
“[W]here a police officer’s testimony is used to bolster the credibility of a victim, the error cannot be deemed harmless.”
5. Detective Called the Child “Reliable”
Another officer, Detective Clifford Williams—who never personally interacted with the child—reviewed reports and testified:
“She was reliable.”
Why This Was Improper
The detective effectively informed the jury that law enforcement had independently determined the allegations were trustworthy.
The appellate court concluded this improperly placed a “cloak of credibility” around the child’s testimony.
6. Detective Claimed the Child Was “Very Consistent”
The detective further testified:
“Very consistent.”
He continued:
“In the majority of the time if children are lying, they will change things or omit things or there’s some type of discrepancy.”
The detective added:
“And each time she gave the account, it was described the same way.”
Why This Was Improper
The appellate court found this testimony especially problematic because it implied the detective possessed expertise in determining whether children were lying.
The testimony improperly suggested the detective had compared the child’s behavior against supposed patterns of deceptive children and concluded the allegations were truthful.
Improper Closing Argument Made the Error Worse
The State then compounded the problem during closing argument by repeatedly emphasizing the child’s honesty and consistency.
The prosecutor argued:
“She was open, honest, forthcoming with you.”
The State also argued:
“That is why a child has been consistent for something that happened as long as five years ago, because it happened to her.”
The prosecutor further relied upon the interviewer’s improper testimony:
“As Matthew Bonner told you … she was resolute.”
and
“She was open and honest.”
Why the Closing Argument Was Improper
The appellate court held these comments improperly placed the prestige of the government behind the witness’s testimony.
Florida law prohibits prosecutors from personally endorsing witness credibility or suggesting the government knows a witness is truthful.
Why the Court Ordered a New Trial
The appellate court concluded the errors were not harmless because the entire case depended on credibility. There was no physical evidence corroborating the allegations.
The court explained that the cumulative effect of the testimony and argument invaded the jury’s role and denied the defendant a fair trial.
The opinion further suggested the misconduct may have risen to the level of fundamental error because the State repeatedly presented credibility-vouching testimony from multiple witnesses, including law enforcement officers, and then emphasized the improper testimony during closing argument.
The conviction was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.
Why This Case Matters in Florida Criminal Defense
This decision highlights an issue that appears frequently in Florida criminal trials: government witnesses subtly—or sometimes directly—telling jurors another witness is believable.
Improper bolstering can occur through testimony that:
- a witness showed “no deception,”
- a witness was “truthful,”
- a witness was “reliable,”
- a witness had “no motive to lie,”
- a witness was “consistent,” or
- a child was “truth qualified.”
These comments can improperly influence jurors, particularly when they come from law enforcement officers or trained forensic interviewers.
For defense attorneys, identifying and preserving these issues is critically important both at trial and on appeal.
At Landsman Law, we closely monitor Florida appellate decisions involving evidentiary errors, constitutional rights, and improper prosecutorial tactics that may impact criminal prosecutions throughout Florida
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, Putnam, Marion 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.