Travesty of Justice
The Supreme Court yesterday ruled in a case from Alaska that the state does not have to provide physical evidence (which the state still has) to a man who has been in prison for 16 years for the purposes of new DNA testing (which the man has agreed to pay for himself). Ed Brayton provides an excellent analysis of the case and explains the negative impact of the decision on our justice system.
I heard this on NHPR, too, and totally did not understand why they decided on this ruling. What do you mean a person does not have a ‘constitutional’ right to evidence used in his or her case? That just seems totally wacked to me.