You get down far enough it says: "At the trial 16 years ago, Skinner's lawyer did not ask that this evidence be tested, apparently fearing that DNA evidence would only incriminate his client further. But since then, Skinner and a new team of lawyers have tried to get access to the material for DNA testing."]
What that means is that THIS IS NOT NEW MATERIAL. 16 years ago the defense could ask for DNA tests ~ but they didn't lest their client get even more incriminated.
I have to laugh at that one LMAOROF and ROFLMAO ~ WOW. Guy was afraid of being further incriminated in a multiple axe murder situation.
Now that's hard to do I'll tell you!
Can you provide a link?
Never mind, I found it. In Texas, the DNA doesn’t have to be yours to incriminate you. Josiah Sutton and Kevin Byrd were both incarcerated because of false testiony from the crime lab scientists.
It probably have seemed smarter to suppress evidence than to allow it to be presented as ‘conclusive evidence of guilt’ when it might not have been.