counsel will result in a “substantial balance of inconvenience” because lead counsel for two of the defendants are located in Washington, D.C., lead counsel for the remaining two defendants are located in New York, and counsel for the government is located in Virginia. However, in weighing all of the Platt factors, the Court finds that justice demands this case be transferred to the United States District Court of Connecticut. h. Relative accessibility of place of trial The Court finds that Defendants have shown a “substantial balance of inconvenience” in adjudicating this matter in this district because the Connecticut courthouses are more accessible to the defendants, the percipient witnesses, and most of the defense, and some of the government agents. See Hurwitz, 573 F.Supp. at 554 (<HOLDING>). i. Docket conditions in each district The
holding that the postconviction court is the sole judge of the weight of the evidence and the credibility of witnesses holding that a courts determination to discount the testimony of the defendants expert witnesses was a proper exercise of his discretion in weighing the demeanor credibility and persuasiveness of the evidence when ruling on a motion for a new trial holding that courts should be mindful of the location of witnesses and counsel in weighing the relative accessibility of the place of trial holding that the combined effect of trial counsels deficiencies should be considered in weighing prejudice holding that material for witnesses need not be produced to defendant where the witnesses were not called as government witnesses at trial