Whether the Equal Protections Clause is violated when there is a conflict amongst the federal circuit courts of appeal dealing with what a defendant is required to show in order to receive a new trial after newly discovered evidence is found, because a defendant in one circuit has a lower burden of proof than a defendant in another circuit, even though the rest of the circumstances are the same?

QUESTION PRESENTED Pursuant to precedent in the Eleventh Circuit, in order to succeed on a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence, a movant is entitled to establish that: “(1) the evidence was discovered after trial, (2) the failure of the defendant to discover the evidence was not due to a lack of due diligence, (3) the evidence is not merely cumulative or impeaching, (4) the evidence is material to issues before the court, and (5) the evidence is such that a new trial would probably produce a different result.” United States v. Hilel, 429 Fed. Appx. 835 (11th Cir. 2011) (citing United States v. Jernigan, 341 F.3d 1273, 1287 (11th Cir. 2003)). The question presented is: Whether the Equal Protections Clause is violated when there is a conflict amongst the federal circuit courts of appeal dealing with what a defendant is required to show in order to receive a new trial after newly discovered evidence is found, because a defendant in one circuit has a lower burden of proof than a defendant in another circuit, even though the rest of the circumstances are the same? i