With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". was secured — can we determine how readily he could have obtained a weapon located just a step or two into the kitchen. In short, without further findings of fact on these issues, which may require taking additional testimony, the record is inadequate to establish whether sufficient potential danger remained, even after Go-ree’s detention, to create an exigency justifying the warrantless search. ■' In such circumstances, a remand for further proceedings is appropriate. See United States v. Hutchinson, 268 F.3d 1117, 1118 (D.C.Cir.2001) (remanding because the district court failed to make “findings of fact essential to decide [the] legal issue” of whether a Terry stop was excessive); United States v. Williams, 951 F.2d 1287, 1291 (D.C.Cir.1991) (remanding for factual findin ir.2000) (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation marks omitted); United

A: recognizing that a passenger in an automobile that is stopped may on the basis that it was illegal move to suppress evidence uncovered as a direct result of the stop
B: 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
C: holding that the government must proffer clear evidence of an independent untainted investigation that inevitably would have uncovered the same evidence as that discovered through the illegal search
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
C.