1. Under the "newly discovered evidence rule" does not evidence discovered after conviction, such as
evidence the movant could not have possibly discovered before conviction constitute "Newly discovered
evidence"?

2. Should a Court grant relief according to the newly discovered rule, upon nothing more than newly
discovered evidence?

3. Is it proper for a court to hold a movant responsible for the respondants failures to investigate the
declarant of the newly discovered evidence?

4. Was it lawful to deny relief upon "no prima facie case" after ordering informal response from
respondants?

5. Is it lawful for a Court to second guess the evidence not addressed by respondants, after responses
were offered?

6. Upon the presentation of newly discovered consistent with the rule, should not a new trial be ordered
by the Court hearing the matter?

Under the 'newly discovered evidence rule' does not evidence discovered after conviction, such as evidence the movant could not have possibly discovered before conviction constitute 'Newly discovered evidence'?