Here the district court as well as the appellate court both determined the relevant facts bit only and daly' Coredtingd the video Fortare, and otReers Coke idauthS 3 over Petitioners' version of events Cand ®snevitokly' es well as iatentionallt overlecked THE morokiIzeD AFF IDAUIT OF PETITIONERS WIFE WHO WAS THE ALLEGED VICTIM, Thos, RetiKioner ordues tat the ceasonind oth Courts relied on to Ascredit his account, UPEWVOS BASIC SumMARY JUDEMENT PRIWCIFLES And WoARRAuTS REVERSAL .

Here the digrect courk as cut as ofellate court loth cotverloded document "22. which is a. WoToZED AEFIOAUIT OF LARESHA Qynsclt; the alleded vicken thos Wit eatentalll staking the entinett of the aPPidavit which Necludedt Lodentitaide desks mort hed introduced Questions of metered Back reSqucdina the intadent (in Luedtion Dd Bork Courts again AiStorted tnastioral Goregrartt Jadervende Shantardts Weis Otiomabl c That a. cour push Cheddr Phe panmneaanty account of Ahe, Racks ok Sommam Sudarments Roth courts did in Lack \preasin Enis Vong Standion Princ fle ond Vhs orders must ke teversed.

The Aiskker court a¢ weil asthe aPPelleke court both ertonecuslt caistok Sackval conclusans rade in MRO as aledal conclusions See Jko 535 Fu. ok 230 staliea Ahak + "where aS here Ve cecerd contouns On Urchalleated Vi deotafe caPturind Ye events in Westen, tue must on credit Hre Plaialies ver Thon of the Racks to the etbent kit nok Conbradicod lel the videotafe:' PetHonee's comPlaint does in Rack Hk Cetact tenes) Periedically thyovahot Loe comPlaint that RAH asterts Crack —Henes thinas can lee Seen > or bath coucts intentional overloaded them as Pinta out lt the @EHoneC The Point 1g rk the video Padme dows Cut Wokartht estaldlich Fackucd CatcurStances contract ty Rebdarer's account. Ths bath Coveks Grred when of Kackunl, Position. .

Whether the district and appellate courts erroneously discredited the petitioner's account by improperly relying on a notarized affidavit and overlooking key evidence in the videotape