With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (noting that the overlapping nature of the evidence undercuts an argument that the failure to disclose pursuant to Brady was prejudicial); see also United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 114, 96 S.Ct. 2392, 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976) (noting that the alleged Brady material did not contradict any evidence already admitted and was similar to other evidence in the record in holding that there was no Brady violation). Although there may be value in a Government expert’s testimony that the defense theory is more convincing than the Govern ment’s theory of the ease, it is significantly less so when, as in this case, the Government expert did not testify on behalf of the Government or recant testimony previously provided. See United States v. Cooper, 654 F.3d 1104, 1120 (10th Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>). Dr. MacDonell’s testimony ultimately would

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 evidence not to be material within the meaning of brady when the evidence did not eliminate the defendant as the perpetrator
C: holding that appellate courts determine the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction based on a review of all of the evidence admitted at trial
D: recognizing that the value of brady evidence must be evaluated in light of the other evidence admitted at trial
D.