Whether the trial court erred in denying the petitioner's motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence

No question identified. : ether FheD 4IN edt e@ ($) PRESENT , seater patterotLon? r bhatt haded fi a bist i e approval he, ofl aw, whether the tod hed edifhetence tthe tettate be fowabheld ra uso . ge ot ? q ourt Efred ‘ne fhisiug te : Oplvt0 a to one's “ et thely? wd —_ ‘i ether the trial court a 7 Peele tesh Mow thet i ae a 18) on Comsitted Levers) He kn . e Defkewd adi had Rioiy whether the Defeude/T wn Jol wot ghd ting B cow . aousiw ConAithed at, ap ow makisg 8 Hf Wu taice oL MUS) berg vive tesths of th rime, upow Ber are tho stopped I | / ” whether th ein TT Hgts the pet iptted phe iveshgpTely ceport eon tolved Ith edt j wif, ’ renchns pres wh permen franthe erie? ‘pteneh? “) weg tothe Wedest which Kei she ts the Defeudert Failure to (lose to hia the Me ootory “eport i" a" ot hisdue process i nolo trod Sthe pon the Meat “Pe deprvred , whether tT auweluded thet there WREWO deace t ) eth bal A | evidesce To Su hstatiate theerime phi st hi is Pa a hel le pecs by te proseculed ofev dev i |y bor b | © 4 evi & [# eval Looe! 4 1olyresy Aue Pree eff where he evidence Cs tewiog c chen pees whether due LG i pw hi § oud seit 4 elt denit | ef the pebihon te ser aud pr ; i h ‘er LY} jt toe A h D-e ford edt Awd $ We f , i} heh i i oO dip tp Be Iv ve h «sed prt ed y (ese evidetes. whether the yetitower asa y 4 pe 4 PH SG suitol endeteé wetthed de ce ced eae dueprocess oly fort } e 2. Vo pep a | : proces 5 thd é AT regu sr of hovers poe, . .