breasts that's it that's the allegation and that's the extent of the evidence against him the victim's allegation in another self could be enough if it was believable but the inconsistency is a lack of other evidence presented to support a conviction doubt reasonable doubt on mr clinton's guilt had the state presented evidence other than the victim and her twelve year old sister's testimonies which are unreliable this case might be weaker for kevin but there isn't any other evidence here  location where he was it had tracked him about an hour prior to the end and at his place of work the parole agent who was monitoring him and monitoring his g p s activity had testified on his behalf at trial that there were only there were times when the g p s might lose its signal when he was inside certain buildings and that might happen quite frequently but whenever he was outside exposed to the air that signal which would generate something to the place that was monitoring the s signal and he would have to go from place of his work to the house for this event happened in broad daylight at the walk in the place to his car and drive to the occasion and get out of his car and walk to the house and he was never tracked in the g p s and any of those times not a single adult who testified at the trial and or spoke to the police in this case claimed to have seen kevin at the house even though five of them had been there at various times during the day the victim didn't tell her grandparents were at the home when  that she had just been abused or touched by mister her reason was at her grandmother's me and so she didn't want to tell her she did tell her grandfather in part because she claims the grandfather knew how can and was but his grandfather also didn't do anything didn't tell anybody didn't talk to anybody about it didn't turn anybody into the police the two people she did tell were her parents and here's what they did her father drove her allegedly to the to her mother's home dropped her off never said anything then good police after she told him didn't tell her mother didn't tell anything mother waited after she told the mother when the mother came home waited until the next day same thing to the police and her excuse was that she wanted more time to discuss the situation with her daughter's first kevin's brother victor could swear that the grandmother's house at the time of this alleged incident occurred he claims kevin was never there he was staying there at the time as his house was undergoing renovation defendant's wife testified that although she and her husband work at different locations for her business they have a closed circuit television and they were able to communicate with each other all day long and all day long that day they were communicating with one another finally father the victim herself and victim's mother that there had been communications that this case could go away for ten thousand dollars defense counsel even brought that to the often police department and the response that just brought out a trial was just not to do it anymore there's reasonable doubt in his case that there is you know the only evidence against my client in this case is the victim's testimony that he touched her and there are adults around none of them can corroborate that this happened there are adults present in the house they don't know why they  she meets the well it's because there's no explanation for why it would have happened otherwise i mean literally in this case he had no reason to go to the house so he but they knew that he was already on on parole for  could have been there i mean i you know i don't know why they did it or you know what the reason what the motivation was behind that other than for financial gain monetary gain or the  testimony from another inmate that did she tell me who was it incarcerated with the defendant at the time and the defendant testified that he didn't talk openly about having been there for a sex offense because in a penal institution or jail setting it's not not not a popular thing to be talking about that you are child molester or sex or convicted of those things and he had this john and dixy tilman admiringly ship with the victim or testified that he had a prior sexual relationship with the victim and that she had said i'm trying to get this money on this case and when i get it i'll give it to me that they had had this conversation from there and he had no motivation to testify in fact at trial the state's attorney brought up that she may have been under eight during this communication and and say the signal frequently gets lost inside buildings but when you're exposed to the open air the signal never gets lost in fact so there is that in the record you can see that the times like literally to the minute when he that the state doesn't even the state's first allegation of the aluminum foil is that the victim heard him ask his grandmother do you have any aluminum foil and by the way her response to the younger sister was she said she didn't have  pity he would have but there is no allegation that he ever there's no evidence that he covered it before he went there i mean it's not that he was asking for aluminum well when he got there almost indicates that he knew he needed to cover it something when he got there rather than that he covered it before mother who dropped her off in the morning grandfather the grandmother or the defendant's brother who were all at one point or another at the house at that house ever testified to seem to happen there so when you combine that you have five itself whether the record evidence could reasonably support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt the question then is whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime  criminal sexual abuse beyond a reasonable doubt as you are alluded to this case times on the credibility of the witnesses the trial court was in the best position to make that determination it saw and heard the witnesses and examined their demeanor at trial the defendant argues that he should have been convicted because he had adult witnesses and there was two children who testified one was sixteen who was the victim and one was  grandparents the defendant is arguing that this case is only based on speculation that there was no certainty to the testimony presented and that was shelby was inconsistent in her testimony i think the record shows override the credibility determination of the trial court which found that was shelby was credible her sister was charming was credible and her mother and dad were credible the defendant is essentially asking this court to retry and he wanted to interfere with that tracking device to void detection the signal happened to be blocked at the very time the defendant was that is and sam it's clear that he had already obtained the aluminum foil and needed more shelby the victim testified she heard the defendant tell her grandmother mrs t that he had aluminum foil in his truck to defend him when inside of the house approached his sixteen year old cousin grabbed her breast and sexually abused her her twelve year old sister sat at the end of the counsel she could see directly into the room saw exactly what happened this isn't merely the testimony of adults versus children two eyewitnesses saw what happened here the defendant himself testified that the court found he was not a credible witness all the other adults were not in that room and they were in the adjoining room they couldn't could not have seen what happened they couldn't have even heard what happened the defendant sev mother bridget however when she was questioned at the trial court she couldn't even determine whether or not the voice speaking to her was that of a man or a woman the evidence if you want to call it evidence of any source an attempt was primarily anil's school simply by mrs kids she her testimony was that she filed a report with the state's attorney's office anyone can make an allegation that expulsion happened but there's there's no evidence other than this alleged phone call that could have been a man or a woman saying we can make this case go away if you pay ten thousand dollars now there was testimony from  man named dixie tillman who incredibly alleged that he was eighteen years old and that he was having a sexual relationship with michelle a be attempting to smear her credibility in the trial for this dixie till an his testimony was all over the place he contradicted his only half the day even he simply couldn't be redeemed as a witness so that's the extent of any extortion evidence i think the evidence presented to the trial court was this defendant enter that home he took liberties with his cousin that he was not entitled to take two witnesses saw him do what he did and that evidence was sufficient to convict him even if you take the defendant's argument is true that there was conflicts in the testimony presented a quarter for review does not a substitute its judgment for that of the trier of fact on those credibility issues the trial court was not required to accept defendant's version of the events it was not required to accept his alibi there was a huge gaping hole in that alibi and it was unsupported by the record all  around factual disputes the resolution of factual disputes is where the trier of fact along with the assessment of the credibility of the witnesses benefit in the sufficiency of the evidence claim this court does not need to decide case there was plenty of evidence down seen yet in criminal cases like this testimony of one credible witness is sufficient to convict here we have the testimony of two no evidence at all that these two no evidence at all that there was any motivation to fabricate or bring a false claim against the defendant in this case the answer is very clear and resounding that there was evidence to the vision to convict so people would respectfully ask to affirm the decision yes i understand state's argument that we're asking this court to try and feel and i would respond that there's a liberty interest here that matters just as much as the justice that gets done and in this case i think that those interests are the same there was to answer question motivation for the for the for the father the victim's father to have at least a difference with the defendant and that  immediately go to the police with the story that the defendant would go to the police with the story of the father yeah well i mean it that this this argument that they had it happened months before i believe months before this happened and also the theory is that he would  many people here were involved with her apparently telling them what had happened in the delay in doing something about it one of the inaction and all of doing anything about it i mean is it so it's almost illogical that your daughter would be groped by somebody who has history with her but he still left her alone after she's allegedly very upset i mean see there her testimony was that she was traumatized by this and the victim's testimony that he just dropped her off there to me that the phone call she had with him allegedly was a very dramatic phone college was hysterical crying and yet he still just kept her up there at the house without any other adult supervision and incidentally mr coons and his wife as soon as they understood understood there was an allegation made against them they contacted mr good's his brother who is a