This is an Alaska crime story, but the true culprits are the Supreme Court, and in what is a departure from the norm for me, I find myself siding with the courts liberal wing. In what part of the Constitution is it written (or not written, as the case seems to be) that a criminal doesn't have a right to any kind of reasonable defense, which would under my standards include DNA evidence, in this case which could exonerate him of the crime of rape for which he was perhaps unfairly convicted.
If the prosecution in a case seems to feel it has sufficient evidence to bring a case, then they should be obliged to provide for such evidence at state expense. If they do, then guess what? They might decide its not such a good case, in a good many cases.
Of course, as I am sure we are all aware, no prosecutor would dream of prosecuting an innocent man and witholding exculpatory evidence in the process.
