Carrillo, 152 Idaho at 749, 274 P.3d at 1264. Furthermore, unlike when ruling on a motion for j.n.o.v., when ruling on a motion for a new trial, the trial court is expressly allowed to “set aside the verdict even though there is substantial evidence to support it.” Sheridan, 135 Idaho at 779-80, 25 P.3d at 92-93. After reviewing the district court’s decision, it is apparent that the district court simply found the fact that Nelson, Dr. Nona, Dr. Greenwald, Dr. Beglinger, and Dr. Beaver all concluded that Ellefson had suffered an injury was more persuasive than Dr. Calhoun’s testimony that she did not. Such a weighing of the evidence is squarely within the bounds of discretion granted the trial judge when evaluating a motion for a new trial. Sheridan, 135 Idaho at 781, 25 P.3d at 94 (<HOLDING>); Collins v. Jones, 131 Idaho 556, 558, 961
recognizing trial courts ability to ascertain the demeanor and credibility of expert witness holding that the postconviction court is the sole judge of the weight of the evidence and the credibility of witnesses holding that a district court was entitled to accept or reject testimony on the basis of the witnesses demeanor and candor or lack thereof and contradictions in the witnesses testimony 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 total deference is given to the trial courts determination of historical facts supported by the record especially when the trial courts findings turn on evaluating a witnesss credibility and demeanor