Does the court judge persuasiveness of the evidence?

that is wrong. We do not judge the persuasiveness of the evidence. An appellate court simply reviews the trial record to see if there was evidence ("reasonable, credible, and of solid value") to support the jury's guilty verdicts (or not); this is essentially a binary analysis. (See People v. Nelson (2011) 51 Cal.4th 198, 210.)

Our role is to "'"examine the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidenceevidence that is reasonable, credible and of solid valuesuch that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." [Citations.] We presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.'" (People v. Nelson, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 210.)