assessing her credibility increases in direct correlation with the significance of the attacks on the other aspects of her credibility. The classic example of witness demeanor being of utmost importance in a case is the “she said, he said” trial in which the victim testifies that the defendant committed a crime against her, and the defendant testifies that he did not commit the alleged crime. The proof in such cases is not merely inconsistent but is directly contradictory. Absent significant proof establishing that one or the other witness was simply lying, the witnesses’ demeanor would be a crucial component of evaluating their respective veracity. In such a case, a successor judge would be unable to independently assess the weight of the evidence. See, e.g., Biggs, 218 S.W.3d at 655 (<HOLDING>). Most cases are not so straightforward.
holding that rule 33s thirteenth juror provision is mandatory and requires a trial judge to act as the thirteenth juror holding that successor judge could not act as thirteenth juror because the case involved accusations by the victim and her parents and a denial of any wrongdoing by the defendant with no physical evidence present witness credibility was an overriding issue holding that case involving evidence such as eyewitness testimony placing the defendant at the scene acknowledgment by the defendant of a dispute with the victim and theft of the victims purse and dna evidence suggesting that the defendant had engaged in sexual relations with the victim could not be deemed entirely circumstantial recognizing that the duty of an appellate court is limited to reviewing whether a trial court performed its obligation as the thirteenth juror and does not include reweighing or reassessing the evidence holding that the jury is the judge of the weight and credibility given to witness testimony