June 2, 2003 and reset several times, many times at the request of the defense. The case had been set for trial for almost two months without any new revelations in the evidence. Moreover, the reports and statements provided by material witnesses were the same reports and statements provided to defense counsel a s is subject to review for abuse of discretion. Balentine v. State, 71 S.W.3d 763, 768 (Tex.Crim.App.2002). During a motion to suppress evidence, the trial judge is the exclusive trier of fact and the sole judge of the credibility of witnesses, including the weight to be given to their testimony. Villarreal v. State, 935 S.W.2d 134, 138 (Tex.Crim.App.1996); Romero v. State, 800 S.W.2d 539, 543 (Tex. Crim.App.1990); see also State v. Ross, 32 S.W.3d 853, 856 (Tex.Crim.App.2000) (<HOLDING>). Because an officer’s obligation to administer
holding that when findings are based on determinations regarding the credibility of witnesses rule 52 demands even greater deference to the trial courts findings for only the trial judge is in a position to be aware of the variations in demeanor including but not limited to the actions mannerisms and facial expressions that bear so heavily on the listeners understanding of and belief in what is said 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 recognizing trial courts ability to ascertain the demeanor and credibility of expert witness 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 a trial courts statutory interpretation is given no deference on review