and Clark, Coleman, and Coleman’s mother faced charges as a result. Coleman avers that actual malice is suggested by Defendants’ failure to investí- gate further by contacting Special Agent Shaffer, who signed the affidavit of probable- cause, or Special Agent Conrad, who supplied information to Special Agent Shaffer. Coleman’s Brief at 21. However, Coleman again fails to indicate what reason Defendants had to doubt the veracity of the special agents of the OAG who supplied the information. As such, the fact that Defendants did not contact the sources referenced in the affidavit does not constitute evidence that Defendants entertained serious doubts about the truthfulness of the information. See, e.g., St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 88 S.Ct. 1323, 20 L.Ed.2d 262 (1968) (<HOLDING>). Finally, Coleman claims that actual malice is
holding that the affiants statement  based upon his belief  did not demonstrate the personal knowledge required by fedrcivp 56e holding that the affidavit in question did not satisfy the burden of the party moving for summary judgment where affiants eonclusory statement failed to indicate personal knowledge of the circumstances in question and personal knowledge could not be reasonably inferred from the contents of the affidavit holding that belated affidavit could be considered where affiants memory was recently refreshed by photographs which he had not been shown during deposition holding actual malice was not shown although defendant relied upon a single affidavit as a source without knowledge of the affiants reputation for veracity or lack thereof holding that it was an abuse of discretion for the district court at the summary judgment stage to consider information from an affidavit based on inadmissible hearsay rather than the affiants personal knowledge