minutes; (2) see the assailant “well;” (3) provide a description of the assailant that is consistent with Respondent’s height, (see Ex. 24); (4) appear confident of his photographic identification of Respondent as the person driving the black pickup truck that was left at the parking lot; and (5) identify Respondent’s photograph nine days after the shooting occurred. After considering the relevant factors for each witness, the Court finds that each of the witness’s statement is independently reliable for purposes of determining probable cause. The Court further notes that any one of the three w weakness in Mexico’s ease against Respondent, but it does not “completely obliterate” evidence of probable cause, and such evidence could be properly excluded. See Garza, 180 Fed.Appx. at 523 (<HOLDING>); see also Barapind v. Enomoto, 400 F.3d 744,
holding that a witnesss testimony or an exhibit may not explicitly and directly contain an opinion as to a trial witnesss credibility holding that a trial witnesss testimony as to the credibility of another witness was prejudicial error holding that conviction on appeal is not admissible to impeach witnesss credibility holding that it was not erroneous for committing court to refuse to admit an affidavit from a private investigator that provided evidence of a witnesss lack of credibility when the affidavit would not have explained away the witnesss testimony but only challenged its credibility holding that under hubbard a trial courts error in excluding bias evidence would be harmless if either 1 despite the exclusion the jury nonetheless had an adequate opportunity to assess the witnesss credibility or 2 the witnesss credibility was not important to the outcome of the trial emphasis added