For evidence to be considered “new” in a legal context, it generally needs to meet specific criteria: it must not have been available at the original trial despite diligent effort, it must be material (not merely repetitive), and it must be likely to lead to a different outcome.

Examples of such evidence include:

• Brady Material: Evidence previously withheld by the prosecution.
• Recantations: Witness retractions, especially when supported by reliable corroboration.
• Scientific Testing: DNA or other scientific analysis that was not available at the time of the trial.
• Unknown or Unavailable Witnesses: Individuals who genuinely could not be identified or produced earlier.

Courts will rigorously examine why this evidence was not presented previously and assess its actual impact on a new trial or sentencing. Claims based on unsupported narratives, unauthenticated text messages, or inadmissible hearsay will typically be unsuccessful.

Strong claims are built upon:

• Sworn Affidavits: Formal written statements made under oath.
• Official Records: Documented evidence.
• Expert Analyses: Opinions and findings from qualified professionals.
• A Theory of Admissibility: A clear explanation of how the evidence complies with the rules of evidence.