The law on DNA testing in the US appears to be in a flux. Or at least, there are variants of the law that does not exactly add up, as you move from state to state. The curious question you would want to ask, would be, why should a ‘simple’ request for DNA testing be turned down or even denied? What if that goes to the substratum of the case; one that is capable of tilting the case one way or the other. If justice is actually the ends of prosecution, why would there be obstacles and booby traps, or any legitimate means of achieving it be prevented, stultified or even stalled, a day longer than necessary.
It’s questions like these that really underscores the need for a broad based advocacy strategy for law reform that cuts across state boundaries, indeed, as an international norm, if the rights to innocence, fair trial provisions and to disclosure of evidence, would make any sense in reality. In a sense, this also interrogates the relevance and the nature of the legal system, around on-going debate as to whether the inquisitorial or adversarial system of justice best serves the interest of accused persons.
The Kirstin Lobato case is another case, in a long time of cases where DNA testing is being challenged by the DA. It will be interesting to see what the outcome would be. Petitions are currently awash on numerous sites urging the DA to do the right thing ‘not to file any opposition to Lobato’s appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court, and request that he allows the Innocence Project to conduct DNA testing and re-testing of crime scene evidence’ Read Ground Report of this case here, including efforts to get Lobato exonerated http://www.groundreport.com/US/100-000-Call-For-DA-To-Allow-DNA-Testing-In-Kirsti/2946798