we explained that recanted testimony can be considered newly
discovered evidence, but in making that determination, the trial court
must examine "all the circumstances of the case. " 642 So. 2d at 735
(emphasis supplied). We cautioned, however, that recanted testimony
is "exceedingly unreliable, and it is the duty of the court to deny a new
trial where it is not satisfied that such testimony is true." Id. Only
where the recanted testimony is of such nature that a different verdict
would probably be rendered should a new trial be granted. See id.
In this case the trial court concluded that Carson's recanted
testimony would not probably produce a different result on retrial. In
making this determination, the trial court did not consider Emanuel's
testimony, which it had concluded was procedurally barred, and did
not consider Carnegia's testimony from a prior proceeding. The trial
court cannot consider each piece of evidence in a vacuum, but must
look at the total picture of all the evidence when making its decision.
Lightbourne, 742 So. 2d at 247.