“It’s extremely hard for me to sit here and listen and hear all the accusations and charges that basically make me look a monster.”

William Osborne, who was convicted of the 1993 rape and assault of a prostitute in Alaska, is backtracking. At one point Osborne confessed but now is claiming DNA testing will prove his innocence.
The case hit the Supreme Court Thursday and was shutdown – Justices decided in a 5-4 decision post-conviction DNA testing is not a constitutional right, saying it’s up the states.

Editorial voices in the media are speaking out strongly about the ruling...
 
-Scienceblogs.com says it is “One of the Worst Court Rulings Ever.”
-Talking Points Memo asks: “Proof of Innocence Not Allowed Constitutionally?!?”
-And the LA Times states: “The Supreme Court’s DNA ruling: Wrong on rights”

(AOC)
But the New York Times highlights why one Justice ruled against post-conviction testing.

“Allowing Mr. Osborne to forgo testing at trial and then request it from prison, Justice [Samuel] Alito wrote, “would allow prisoners to play games with the criminal justice system.”
...States would incur significant costs, Justice Alito added, were prisoners “given a never-before-recognized constitutional right to rummage through the state’s genetic-evidence locker.”

(AOC)
NBC has the perspective of an attorney who supports Alito’s decision.

“It’s wrong for defendants to be able to go to trial and be able to try to get acquitted on one set of evidence and then if they lose, run another set of arguments and make victims go through the process twice.”

However, others news sources like CNN have the perspective that because DNA can prove a person’s innocence, it’s crucial.

“Civil rights groups argue access to DNA evidence is a Constitutional right, saying 232 people have been exonerated in the last two decades because of testing.”

The LA Times backs that up in an editorial explaining why it feels the Justices got it wrong.

“In ruling that inmates have no right to sophisticated DNA evidence that could exonerate them, five conservative Supreme Court justices have taken a cruelly cramped view of the protections of the Bill of Rights.”