
	Their testimony would be a contradiction of the plaintiff's charge (and
witness) that the occupant moved after the impact, indicating he was alive and
trying to get out (and provoking all sorts of sympathetic 'gross, burned alive'
reactions).


	They are two witnesses who didn't come forth until after the first
trial.  While it would be "tough luck" for GM if they new about these witnesses
beforehand, IMO this constitutes "new evidence".


	No, I support rulings that deny new trials on those grounds.