by testifying that (1) he did not think this information relevant until Jones suddenly died; and (2) White never asked him for any information about the fight at the time. The State’s dispute with the district court’s finding generally appears to center on the court’s believing Prewitt’s testimony. Although White testified that he did not tell Prewitt to lie during Fair-man’s trial, the court found Prewitt’s testimony “wholly credible,” and we will not find clear error where a court has chosen one of two rational alternatives in making its determination. See Anderson, 470 U.S. at 573-74, 105 S.Ct. 1504. Instead, we will defer to the district court’s experience with the record and its having observed the witnesses. See, e.g., United States v. Garda, 963 F.2d 693, 707 (5th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). In view of the court’s having held a hearing
holding that the jury is the tribunal to determine the weight to be accorded the testimony of the witnesses and accept or reject the valuations placed thereupon holding that material for witnesses need not be produced to defendant where the witnesses were not called as government witnesses at trial 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 jury is entitled to accept the states version of the facts and reject appellants version or reject any of the witnesses testimony 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