Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion for new trial on conspiracy to commit murder charges based on claim that govt. conducted outrageous behavior when investigator engaged in affair with defendant’s wife, who was subject of murder conspiracy, during investigation of said charges, and that defendant possessed new favorable evidence. While affair tainted govt.’s case against defendant, said affair, by itself, was not so outrageous so as to bar prosecution on murder conspiracy charges, where there was no evidence that subject conduct involved any coercion of defendant to commit charged offense. Ct. also found that proffered new evidence regarding time frame of affair did not require that defendant receive new trial where defendant either was not diligent in obtaining said evidence prior to his trial, or was actually aware of said evidence prior to trial. Ct. also held that Dist. Ct.’s eight-year delay in rendering decision on motion for new trial did not constitute violation of defendant’s right to speedy trial where motion for new trial did not challenge his conviction or 20-year sentence, and where defendant otherwise failed to establish any prejudice arising out of delay.