Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): the credibility of the defense’s approach to its case. Clark v. State, 878 S.W.2d 224, 226 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1994, no pet.). We cannot conclude that the trial court’s comment was a statement of approval of the State’s argument, disbelief in the defense’s position, or an effort to diminish the credibility of the defense’s approach to the case. Whether the alleged statements were actually made by the police was a question for the jury to resolve. The trial court stated that appellant could testify about “who it was that said it.” The statement that followed, “if it was said,” could have been interpreted as a proper reminder by the trial court to the jury that, it was the jury, not the trial court who would resolve that issue. See Johnson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 1, 7 (Tex.Crim.App.2000) (<HOLDING>). Because we cannot determine that the trial 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the postconviction court is the sole judge of the weight of the evidence and the credibility of witnesses (B) holding the resolution of questions regarding credibility and the weight given to testimony is a function of the family court judge who heard the testimony (C) holding the question of whether an accomplice is credible and the weight to be given to the testimony are issues for the jury to determine (D) holding that the jury is the judge of the weight and credibility given to witness testimony (E) holding that defendants truthfulness and the credibility of and weight to be given expert medical testimony are issues of fact for jury
Output (English): holding that defendants truthfulness and the credibility of and weight to be given expert medical testimony are issues of fact for jury