Vause completed the Incident Report, along with an “Offense Report” and an “Arrest Ticket” for Fredrick, during his investigation of Fredrick’s alleged burglary of a residence. Mills argues here, as in his Rule 3.850 motion, that Mills could have used the statement to support his theory that Fredrick was a violent man capable of killing Lawhon himself. Mills claims that this would support his theory that Fredrick, not Mills, shot Lawhon. The district court concluded that the information is not material because it is not exculpatory. We agree. The evidence is neither directly exculpatory, nor does it relate to Fredrick’s credibility. We note in passing that the information contained in the report was of dubious admissibility, see Delap v. Dugger, 890 F.2d 285, 299 (11th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 929, 110 S.Ct. 2628,
holding test for admissibility of alternative perpetrator evidence is not as onerous as the standard courts apply in determining whether evidence is sufficient to support a conviction holding that suppressed evidence is not material when its admissibility at trial is uncertain holding that material submitted by appellant that is cumulative of evidence previously of record is not new holding that allegations of tampering went to the weight of the evidence rather than to its admissibility holding that trial courts are gatekeepers in determining fitness of scientific expert testimony for admissibility at trial