Opinion ID: 1670792
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: use of the mathews' timeline

Text: Finally, the Appellant claims that a forty-page timeline, composed by Mathews' defense lawyers from statements made by Mathews and numerous potential witnesses, proves that David Housler is innocent because Mathews, who refused to testify at Housler's trial, nowhere mentions Housler's participation in the murders and robbery. The timeline was not introduced as an exhibit at trial but was in the possession of defense counsel. This argument is entirely without merit. The timeline is hearsay composed of hearsay, and much of its information is inconsistent with evidence produced at trial. It is also not internally consistent. The timeline is also not new evidence. And as the appeals court noted, the jurisdiction of both it and this Court is appellate only; we do not have fact-finding authority. Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-5-108 (1994). Accepting the Appellant's argument would require us to substitute our assessment of the evidence for that of the finder of facta task we cannot do. Therefore, we hold that the Appellant is not entitled to any remedy on this ground.