district court learns of newly discovered evidence after a conviction, it should provide relief “if the defendant makes a showing that the evidence is in fact ‘new,’ i.e., it could not have been discovered, exercising due diligence before or during trial, and that the evidence is so material and non-cumulative that its admission ‘would probably lead to an acquittal.’” United States v. Siddiqi, 959 F.2d 1167, 1173 (2d Cir.1992) (quoting United States v. Alessi, 638 F.2d 466, 479 (2d Cir.1980)). It is clear that the evidence concerning McMahon is “new”; neither Bloomer nor the government could have discovered the evidence before or during trial. Furthermore, because the new evidence was the only evidence impeaching McMahon’s credibility, it was non-cumulative. Cf. Gordils, 982 F.2d at 72 (<HOLDING>); Gilbert, 668 F.2d at 96 (holding that new
holding that promises made by the prosecution to a witness in exchange for that witness testimony relate directly to the credibility of the witness holding that new evidence must be evidence that is not merely cumulative holding that new evidence is evidence not previously of record and not merely cumulative of other evidence holding that it is improper to ask a witness to comment on the credibility of another witness holding that new evidence impeaching credibility of governments key witness was cumulative of other evidence of witness criminal activity