Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): new trial is granted.” United States v. Grover, 511 F.3d 779, 783 (8th Cir.2007). “[I]n order to meet the materiality requirement, newly discovered evidence must be ‘more than merely ... impeaching.’ ” United States v. Baker, 479 F.3d 574, 577 (8th Cir.2007) (quoting United States v. Dogskin, 265 F.3d 682, 685 (8th Cir.2001)). The district court properly held Lee had not met his burden of establishing reasonable diligence as to the testimony of Higgins. Due to the evidence adduced at trial connecting Lee to Higgins, Higgins was a prime target to question. But, at the new-trial hearing, Lee’s counsel admitted Lee and he had done nothing to locate Higgins prior to trial. Such inaction does not qualify as reasonable diligence. See United States v. Moore, 221 F.3d 1056, 1058 (8th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). In addition, Doyle’s proffer interview would 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that to justify a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence 1 the evidence must have been discovered after trial 2 the failure to discover this evidence must not be attributable to a lack of due diligence on the part of the movant 3 the evidence must not be merely cumulative or impeaching 4 the evidence must be material and 5 the evidence must be likely to produce an acquittal if a new trial is granted (B) holding that to obtain a new trial based on newly discovered evidence the defendant must allege facts from which the court may infer diligence on the part of the defendant (C) holding that unavailable evidence may constitute newly discovered evidence if the failure to learn of the evidence did not result from the defendants lack of due diligence (D) holding that posttrial discovery of asserted newly discovered evidence did not satisfy the requirement that the evidence must be such as with reasonable diligence could not have been discovered and produced at trial (E) holding that affidavit from a new witness was not newly discovered evidence because trial counsel knew of the existence of the witness before trial trial counsel with due diligence could have discovered the evidence
Output (English): holding that posttrial discovery of asserted newly discovered evidence did not satisfy the requirement that the evidence must be such as with reasonable diligence could not have been discovered and produced at trial