~>  ~> "Lock 'em up, they're all guilty!"
 
~>  EC> Do you understand what the case was about?  The people affected are
~>  EC> people who have already been convicted in a fair trial.  That is what
~>  EC> "guilty" MEANS. 
 
~> Too bad the evidence exonerates them, isn't it.  

You apparently don't know any more about the case than he did.  There was
ample evidence against Osbourne.  He was convicted.  One small part of that
evidence against him was a low-grade DNA test.  The defense could have
sought a higher-grade DNA test AT THE TIME, but CHOSE NOT TO because it
expected the higher-grade test would also be positive.  After he was
convicted, he confessed to the crime.  He is now serving time on a later
conviction of home invasion.

The more general point is that 47 states have, as a matter of policy,
passed laws to deal with the matter of post-conviction DNA testing.  That
is the way such things are done.  It is not required and has never been
required as a matter of constitutional right, but legislatures can
legislate on the matter.  And now six members of the Supreme Court have
affirmed the obvious: it is not in the Constitution.
 
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a