In Armstrong v. State, 642 So.2d 730, 735 (Fla. 1994), the court 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. The court 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.