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'?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 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? :