“I Don’t Believe You”: Why a Judge’s Power to Reject Police Testimony is Bulletproof

By: John Guidry

Here’s a nugget of truth: Criminal defense lawyers and prosecutors disagree about just about everything. Duh. Fortunately, our justice system provides a referee to assist in these disputes: The Judge. Believe it or not, the toughest decision a judge can make is to believe—or not believe—a police officer.

The Problem: Some inexperienced prosecutors (and some “intellectually lazy” judges) assume that everything the police say is true, and everything a defendant says is a lie.

• The Easy Way Out: Some judges simply rubber-stamp the officer’s testimony.
• The Brave Way: Some judges actually do their job and find that a police officer is not credible.

Did the Judge believe a cop who was clearly exaggerating?

Credibility is the key to the case. Call John today at (407) 423-1117.

The Case: Duke v. State (The “Sick” Driver Excuse)

To see a brave judge in action, let’s look at the saga of Duke v. State, 82 So. 3d 1155 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).

• The Stop: Duke was stopped for a wire hanging over his license tag and for driving over the white line.
• The Pivot: At the suppression hearing, the Prosecutor conceded that the tag and the lane weaving weren’t enough to justify the stop.
• The New Excuse: Instead, the Officer testified that the driving pattern made him think Duke was “sick or impaired,” justifying a “Welfare Check” stop.

The Ruling: The County Court Judge granted the Motion to Suppress.

• The Reason: The Judge found the Officer’s late claim of “impaired driving” was not credible. (Likely because the Officer forgot to mention this “concern” in his report but conveniently remembered it in court).

The Appeal: “Uncontroverted” vs. “Not Credible”

The Prosecutor appealed, shocked that a judge wouldn’t believe a cop.

• The Circuit Court: Reverted the decision. They argued that because no one testified against the officer, his testimony was “Uncontroverted” and therefore must be believed.

The “Alien Abduction” Fallacy: Did you catch the failed logic? Just because testimony is “uncontroverted” doesn’t make it true. Many alien abduction stories are “uncontroverted” (only the victim was there), but that doesn’t make them credible.

The Final Word (2nd DCA): The Second District Court of Appeal stepped in and reinstated the suppression.

• The Law: An appellate court cannot re-weigh the evidence.“The circuit court… cannot reweigh the evidence and choose to believe a state witness which the county court chose not to believe.”

The Lesson: If the trial judge says, “I don’t believe this witness,” no other judge can overrule that credibility finding. It is bulletproof.

The Subtle Power of the Bench

I want you to see something subtle here that every County Court Judge knows. Credibility findings insulate a decision from appeal.

• Scenario A: If the Judge ruled, “I believe the officer, but the law says that’s not enough,” the State could appeal and win on the law.
• Scenario B: By ruling, “I simply don’t believe the officer’s story,” the Judge creates a factual finding that a higher court cannot touch.

That is real power. Not “Federal Reserve Chairman” power, but power nonetheless.

John’s 2026 Update: The Camera vs. The Report

Note: In 2012, credibility was a “he said/she said.” In 2026, credibility is “he said/the video showed.”

1. The Death of “Uncontroverted” Testimony In 2026, almost no police testimony is truly “uncontroverted” because the Body Cam is always the second witness.

• The 2026 Strategy: If an officer testifies, “I stopped him because he looked sick,” we play the Body Cam audio where he tells dispatch, “I’m stopping him to check for warrants.” The video controverts the testimony instantly. We don’t need the Judge to “guess” about credibility; we prove the deception.

2. AI Discrepancy Analysis Defense firms now use AI tools to compare the Written Police Report vs. the Live Court Testimony.

• The Tool: The AI highlights: “Alert: Officer testified today that the driver swerved 3 times. In his 2025 deposition, he said 0 times.”
• The Result: We hand this report to the Judge. It gives the Judge the “cover” they need to make that brave “Not Credible” finding without fear of political backlash.

3. Judicial Accountability Dashboards Public websites now track how often specific judges grant Motions to Suppress.

• The Impact: Judges who never find a cop “not credible” are now statistically exposed as outliers. This data encourages judges to be more “brave” because they don’t want to be seen as a rubber stamp for the State.

The Judge is the Referee

No one said judging is an easy job. But for those judges who have never found a cop to be untruthful—they aren’t doing their job. We need referees who call the fouls, no matter who commits them.

Call me at (407) 423-1117. Let’s test their credibility.

About John Guidry II

John Guidry II is a seasoned criminal defense attorney and founder of the Law Firm of John P. Guidry II, P.A., located in downtown Orlando next to the Orange County Courthouse, where he has practiced for over 30 years. With more than three decades of experience defending clients throughout Central Florida since 1993, Guidry has successfully defended thousands of cases in Orange, Seminole, Osceola, Brevard, Lake, and Volusia counties. He has built a reputation for his strategic approach to criminal defense, focusing on pretrial motions and case dismissals rather than jury trials.

Guidry earned both his Juris Doctorate and Master of Business Administration from St. Louis University in 1993. He is a member of the Florida Bar and the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. His practice encompasses the full spectrum of Florida state criminal charges, with a particular emphasis on achieving favorable outcomes through thorough pretrial preparation and motion practice.

Beyond the courtroom, Guidry is a prolific legal educator who has authored over 400 articles on criminal defense topics. He shares his legal expertise through his popular YouTube channel, Instagram, and TikTok accounts, where he has built a substantial following of people eager to learn about the law. His educational content breaks down complex legal concepts into accessible information for the general public.

When not practicing law, Guidry enjoys tennis and pickleball, and loves to travel. Drawing from his background as a former recording studio owner and music video producer in the Orlando area, he brings a creative perspective to his legal practice and continues to apply his passion for video production to his educational content.