Whether Using a Different, More Stringent, Standard of Review When a Trial Court Grants a Motion for New Trial than Utilized When a Trial Court Denies a Motion for New Trial Violates Due Process?

II. Whether an Appellate Court is Free to Substitute its own Witness Credibility Determinations for that of the Trial Court Without Regard to the Trial Court Having Seen and Listened to the Witnesses Testimony?

III. Whether a United States Court of Appeals May Effectively Abolish Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure by Enacting a Different, More Stringent, Level of Review When a Trial Court Grants a Motion for New Trial that is Functionally Impossible to Meet?

Whether Using a Different, More Stringent, Standard of Review When a Trial Court Grants a Motion for New Trial than Utilized When a Trial Court Denies a Motion for New Trial Violates Due Process?