which he discussed the fact that he spoke with all the witnesses and potential witnesses, except for the victims, who refused to speak with him, belies this contention. Accordingly, there is no basis for finding that Howard’s trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in this regard. (c) Failure to ma 2d 80) (2000); see Ga. Const. Art. VI, Sec. II, Par. VI (“ [A] 11 criminal cases shall be tried in the county where the crime was committed, except cases in the superior courts where the judge is satis ) (b) (706 SE2d 757) (2011) (punctuation omitted); see Perdue, 298 Ga. at 845 (3) (noting that it is well established that the decision as to which defense witnesses to call is a matter of trial strategy and tactics). 35 See Moss v. State, 298 Ga. 613, 619 (5) (d) (783 SE2d 652) (2016) (<HOLDING>); Davenport, 308 Ga. App. at 154 (2) (b)
holding that a trial witnesss testimony as to the credibility of another witness was prejudicial error holding that a witnesss testimony or an exhibit may not explicitly and directly contain an opinion as to a trial witnesss credibility holding that given trial counsels concerns about witnesss credibility and status as a felon his decision not to call witness was reasonable holding that the jury is the judge of the weight and credibility given to witness testimony holding that counsels decision not to call witnesses was unreasonable because counsels stated reasons for disputing the witnesses credibility were not supported by objective evidence