In People v. Hamilton, 115 AD3d 12 (2nd Dept. 2014) at the time of trial, defendant had a potential alibi defense, established by two known witnesses. Hamilton was unable to proceed at trial with this alibi defense because one witness was ill and the other witness was too afraid to testify. In his motion to vacate his judgment of conviction, Hamilton raised a claim of actual innocence and offered two additional alibi witnesses. The Hamilton alibi was credible in that it was related to specific, detailed, verifiable events and spanned a period of time and was plausible. It put Mr. Hamilton in a different state - Connecticut - at the time of the crime. Further, one of the two new alibi witness was a New Haven police officer. These new witnesses corroborated the earlier alibi witnesses who did exist and were known at the time of trial but were not called at trial because of illness and fear. Hamilton claimed these witnesses constituted newly discovered evidence. The Court found that the two additional witnesses did not constitute newly discovered evidence because they were discoverable at the time of trial. However, upon assertion of a claim of actual innocence, new evidence may be considered even if it does not satisfy the traditional "Salemi" factors for newly discovered evidence. (Hamilton at 26.)