All too often in this nation, when the terms Supreme Court and DNA come together, the story is about testing someones DNA against their will. DNA has become property of the state in many places, prosecutors being allowed to use it when and where they want while defendants are often blocked from using it in their own defense. This is incredibly bad for both liberty and justice. The prosecuting attorney should be fighting to place GUILTY people behind bars at all costs, not just someone convenient per crime.

Are most people that the law goes after guilty? Yes they generally are. Does this mean that we can assume a general burden of proof lies with the defense or that the state should receive special treatment? No we can't. At any point in a serious, especially death penalty, case, the prosecution should be vigourously pursuing ALL available resources to not only "seal the deal" on a defendant but to make damn sure that the defendant is the actual perpetrator. 

In this case, Henry skinner was on death row and was within an hour of death when the Supreme court stepped in to hear the case. I have very little doubt as to his guilt, as do most of the people that worked hard to solve the crime. Yet he was almost executed without the prosecution ever doing a DNA test on the evidence. Whether or not this man killed someone, how can the state not want to put this to rest?

Granted, it is in Texas and very little can get in the way of that states love affair with murdering inmates, but this is a serious issue of misconduct. Any prosecuting team or state legal department should have a first priority of fully processing evidence and ensuring that every available avenue of investigation has been explored. For a state to refuse to examine evidence, note that this isn't about "re-examining" because they never bothered even once, is tantamount to murder in capital cases. At the very least, I think that any prosecutor or states attorney that blocks a review of evidence or refuses to conduct methods of investigation like DNA should be brought up on charges of willful indifference to death should the person be executed. Perhaps then they might be a little more stringent during the course of their work and, most especially, when a persons life is on the line.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/03/07/us.scotus.death.penalty/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn