There isn’t anything special about DNA testing, it’s just that there isn’t a right to introduce new evidence after conviction if there wasn’t a procedural violation during the trial.My understanding of the reasoning is that it keeps people from being able to frivolously demand a new trial anytime they say “I found the real killer!”, or whatever. But it leads to this crazy quirk of constitutional law wherein being innocent of the crime you were convicted of isn’t legitimate grounds for appeal.Anyway, this is why we need judges with empathy. |