“His body posture ... shaking his head ... mumbling under his breath. From the very start, he was out to disrupt the process.” Brock continued his disruptive behavior until Judge Lee directly admonished him. Judge Lee testified to the following: “It had been going on for hours, I had had plenty of his childish behavior. I told him, You’re getting on my last nerve. I don’t want to see you sitting there shaking your head anymore.’ ” Judge Lee told Brock to sit up so that they could finish the trial. In response to Judge Lee’s admonishments, Brock gave a “mean look” and said, “Oh, I’ve got something for. you, just wait.” Based on his glare, demeanor, and posture, several courtroom observers, including Judge, Lee, perceived Brock’s statement as a threat. See Lebleu, 192 S.W.3d at 209 (<HOLDING>). Shortly thereafter, Brock attempted to
holding that testimony by witnesses that the defendant threatened a witness is sufficient to support acharge of retaliation holding that uncorroborated testimony of one witness is sufficient by itself to sustain a conviction holding that expert testimony on effect of drug abuse on witness memory would intrude upon the jurys role in assessing witness credibility only because the defendant had not put forth any evidence to show that the witnesses actually used drugs and that thus there was no factual link between the experts testimony and the specific witnesses holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting testimony to only one witness where additional witnesses would have provided the same testimony holding that death of potential alibi witness did not cause actual prejudice because defendant failed to relate the substance of the testimony of the missing witness in sufficient detail and to show witness testimony not available from other sources