that when no improper law-enforcement activity is involved, reliability is sufficiently tested “through the rights and opportunities generally designed for that purpose, notably, the presence of counsel at postindictment lineups, vigorous cross-examination, protective rules of evidence, and jury instructions on both the fallibility of eyewitness identification and the requirement that guilt be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 721. Despite the appellant’s suggestion to the contrary, we do not find in Perry a set of factors the trial court must employ to determine the reliability of eyewitness testimony. Instead, the Perry Court underscored the role of the jury in making credibility determinations, just as Texas courts have done. See id.; see also, e.g., Davis, 177 S.W.3d at 359 (<HOLDING>). Having reviewed all of the evidence in the
recognizing that the pto has special expertise in evaluating patent applications recognizing the jurys role in evaluating credibility recognizing that an employer had a dual role as administrator of plan and as employer and only the role of administrator was held to a fiduciary standard holding that this court has unambiguously explained that special masters are expected to consider the credibility of expert witnesses in evaluating petitions for compensation under the vaccine act holding that the jurys resolution of questions of credibility and demean or  is entitled to special deference 