It was corroborating testimony for a police officer which radically changed his story from his initial much milder claims, with video which shows each that that officer was behaving a bit wildly (no audio), that the Oathkeeper testimony is supported by the video which was not afforded them for the trial, and that the corroborating officer could not possibly have observed what he said he did as he was in another building at the beginning and was in a different part of the building until approximately 10 minutes after the encounter as they were in a line leaving the building.
Thanks for the info.