Was there a link to the ruling? It's been my experience that articles on SCOTUS rulings (hell any legal matters) usually miss the holding entirely and seize on dicta and other bullshit that really don't much matter.
I suspect there was a floodgate argument made that the court may have agreed with but it wasn't clear. In the present case what seemed more likely* was that the court said to defendent, "you had your chance to pursue DNA testing when you made your original defense and declined... you don't get a second bite at the apple because you were convicted." But who knows.
*
Quote:
|
A paradox in the case, at least to a layman, is the fact that Mr. Osborne’s lawyer at the time of the trial declined to pursue the most advanced DNA testing available — for fear, she acknowledged later, that it would prove his guilt.
|