to two cell towers in southwest Detroit, located approximately 20 miles away from the residence; and Andrew made calls that connected to two towers that were 6 to 8 miles away. Agent Hess assumed that each call was not diverted to a tower that was many sectors away to conclude that these three individuals were absent from the residence during the relevant time periods. While the assumption that a tower would not service a call made 10 or 20 miles away may be challenged — and indeed it was challenged at Reynolds’s trial — such a challenge speaks to the weight of the evidence, and not to its inherent reliability, because there are identifiable, measurable, and scientifically accepted factors that determine a cell tower’s maximum coverage range. See e.g., Jones, 918 F.Supp.2d at 5 (<HOLDING>). Reynolds made calls that connected to two
holding the resolution of questions regarding credibility and the weight given to testimony is a function of the family court judge who heard the testimony holding that challenges to assumptions about the strength of the signal from a given cell tower  go to the weight of the testimony not its reliability holding that the jury is the judge of the weight and credibility given to witness testimony holding the question of whether an accomplice is credible and the weight to be given to the testimony are issues for the jury to determine holding validity challenges to a whole contract go to the arbitrator