C.B., apart from counsel’s assertion in her questioning to that
effect. But D.P. did agree that she had her cellphone that night,
acknowledged the number as it appeared on the photographs of
the texts, had texted the appellant C.B. that night and “sort of”
adopted one of the messages, the meaning of which she explained.
No decision had been made at this point in the trial about whether
the appellant C.B. would testify.
 The effect of the private investigator’s evidence, trial
counsel accepted, was that he had picked up the phone from the
appellant C.B.’s mother. No phone number was associated with it.
Counsel acknowledged that the appellant C.B. could have been a
source of getting the text messages and photos filed as numbered
exhibits. In the end, counsel left it to the trial judge to determine
the weight to be assigned to the text messages and photos in the
The arguments on appeal
 The appellants say that the proposed fresh evidence, in
particular, the affidavit of Marty Musters, should be admitted
in this case. The evidence satisfies the conditions precedent to
admissibility. The opinion advanced is admissible under the rules
of evidence, cogent and not excluded for want of due diligence.
 No dispute arises about the admissibility of the evidence
of Marty Musters were it to be tendered at trial. He is a duly
qualified expert entitled to conduct an analysis on the contents of
the cellphone. His evidence is relevant to a material issue: the
origins and authenticity of the text messages and photographs
used in cross-examination.
 The appellants contend that the proposed evidence is well
capable of belief; is related to a material issue at trial, being the
credibility of the complainants and the reliability of their
evidence; and, if given there, might well have affected the trial
judge’s conclusion about the veracity of the complainants’
evidence, and thus the verdict at trial.
 As for due diligence, the appellants begin with a submission that due diligence is not a condition precedent to the admissibility of this evidence. That this evidence, or evidence to the
same effect, was not called at trial was not the product of a strategic or tactical decision not to do so. Counsel had a well-grounded belief that the text messages and photos had been
properly authenticated to permit their use in cross-examination
of the complainants. The combined effect of D.P.’s testimony that
she believed no one else had possession of her cellphone at the
relevant time, together with its number and admitted text
exchanges with the appellant C.B., as well as the continuity of