assistance of counsel claim. We therefore affirm the district court’s denial of petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims. V Mancuso asserts that the use of posthypnotic testimony deprived him of his Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him. He contends that the hypnotic process itself undermines the ability to reliably test a witness’ veracity on cross-examination because it. hardens the witness’. memories, whether ■ or not such memories are uncertain or false. Because such memories remain unconscious, Mancuso asserts confrontation is impossible. We have previously rejected this argument. The admission of post-hypnotic testimony does not violate the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, See United States v. Awkard, 597 F.2d 667, 669 (9th Cir.1979) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Adams, 581 F.2d 193, 198
holding that the jury is the judge of the weight and credibility given to witness testimony holding that credibility determinations are for the jury holding that allegations of tampering went to the weight of the evidence rather than to its admissibility holding as to the admissibility of prior bad acts that allegedly took place fourteen and twelve years before the acts alleged in that case that the lapse of time between the defendants sexual acts    goes to the weight of the evidence not to its admissibility holding the fact of hypnosis if disclosed to the jury may affect the credibility of evidence but not its admissibility