and that the relevant statements were made in furtherance of it.” Id. The Court denies Huber’s argument that Rose’s co-conspirator statements were inadmissable, and the motion for a judgment of acquittal on this basis is denied. E. Evidence of Guilt Huber argues that the finding of guilty was inconsistent with the evidence. As support for this argument, Huber spends a considerable amount of effort attacking the credibility of the government witnesses. Because the determination of witness credibility is within the province of the jury, “[a] trial court has neither the duty nor the authority to grant a motion for acquittal based on the credibility of a witness.” United States v. Kirkie, 261 F.3d 761, 768 (8th Cir.2001); accord United States v. Chavez, 230 F.3d 1089, 1091 (8th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). The Court rejects Huber’s request to enter a
holding a failure to object to a witnesses testimony while the witness was on the stand justified overruling a motion for a mistrial made several witnesses later holding that material for witnesses need not be produced to defendant where the witnesses were not called as government witnesses at trial holding that district court had no authority to grant motion for judgment of acquittal based on defendants claim that witnesses had improper interests in testifying gave testimony that conflicted with that of other witnesses or were categorically untrustworthy holding that selfinterested witnesses can be reliable when they provide detailed testimony that is corroborated by other witnesses or facts holding that a district court was entitled to accept or reject testimony on the basis of the witnesses demeanor and candor or lack thereof and contradictions in the witnesses testimony