context: First, this vaguely worded one-paragraph affidavit is not the affidavit of the witness with personal knowledge of the events described in the affidavit; rather, it is the hearsay testimony of Williams's trial counsel about a witness who is Williams's brother and was presumably available to execute an affidavit based upon personal knowledge, not hearsay. At best, this hearsay "evidence" referenced in trial counsel's affidavit might be useful for impeaching the defense's own witness (which carries with it a host of other issues), but it is clearly not substantive evidence warranting a new trial.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 965 S.W.2d 852, 859
citation_a.parenthetical: holding an affidavit containing impeachment evidence is insufficient to support the granting of a new trial
citation_a.sentence: See also State v. Gatewood, 965 S.W.2d 852, 859 (Mo.App.W.D.1998) (holding an affidavit containing impeachment evidence is insufficient to support the granting of a new trial).
citation_b.signal: no signal
citation_b.identifier: 857 S.W.2d 393, 398
citation_b.parenthetical: "[Af-fiant's] testimony is hearsay, useful perhaps for impeach[ment] ..., but not as substantive evidence."
citation_b.sentence: State v. Westcott, 857 S.W.2d 393, 398 (Mo.App.W.D.1993) (“[Af-fiant’s] testimony is hearsay, useful perhaps for impeach[ment] ..., but not as substantive evidence.”).