1. Given that Rule 33 of the Federal Criminal Rules of Procedure
allows a court discretion to grant a new trial if the interest
of justice require, can a court reject a new trial motion
based on newly discovered evidence under Rule 33(b) despite
proving a manifest injustice under Rule(a)? Can the 33(a)
criteria override the 33(b) new evidence criteria?

2. Does the denial of a new trial under Rule 33 on the ground
that a defendant had prior knowledge of the evidence, without
consideration of the defendant's actual ability to access or,
present the exculpatory evidence during the original trial-
violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?

3. Whether the failure of the trial defense counsel to obtain a
clear and intelligible audio recording for the purpose of
exculpation, coupled withsubsequent new evidence establishing
factual innocence, constitute a violation of the Sixth Amendment's
guarantee of effective assistance of counsel and therefore
necessitate a new trial, not withstanding the lower court's
contention that the evidence was available at the time of trial?

4. Whether the mere presence of pills shaped as a "superman"
shield, discovered in seperate residences, without any evidence
of an agreement or the means to manufacture them, is sufficient
to invoke conspiracy charges, by asserting that the pills are
like a "fingerprint" that ties the residences together. Also,
Whether the "fingerprint" theory, in the absence of any
evidence or an agreement linking an individual to a conspiracy
violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution?

5. Whether or not the Supreme Court should exercise it's supervisory
power to grant a writ of certiorari to correct a clear, blatant,
and facial error made by a lower court that has resulted in a
substantial miscarriage of justice, especially where the affected
party is a pro se litigant who is inherently disadvantaged in the
legal process?

whether-rule-33-criteria-override