Did the circuit court erroneously violate petitioner's right to due process when it applied an incorrect legal standard to newly discovered evidence?

Do the new evidence that prior to trial, the state's witness admitted that petitioner was not involved in the robberies and that they nonetheless intended to frame petitioner for them, insufficient to support a newly discovered evidence claim on the grounds that it "merely tends to impeach the credibility of witness"?

Is the new evidence that petitioner as not involved in the robberies" cumulative" of evidence that the state witness had motive to falsely accuse him?

Are the pretrial admissions by the state's witness that petitioner was not involved in the robberies and that they nonetheless intended to frame him for them admissible, and if so, are they adequately corroborated?

Do the newly discovered pretrial admissions by the state's witness that petitioner in fact was not involved in the robberies create a reasonable probability of a different result?

Whether the circuit court erroneously violated petitioner's right to due process when it applied an incorrect legal standard to newly discovered evidence