No problem. In a wide-ranging speech last week to the American Constitution Society that less controversially takes on some Ku Klux Klan-favoring jurisprudence, former Justice John Paul Stevens says he thinks he would have voted with the majority in Maryland v. King, for four reasons, including this one:
[T]he proven accuracy of DNA samples in both establishing guilt and exonerating the innocent who have been mistakenly convicted or accused, favors greater rather than lesser use of DNA evidence. Rules that unnecessarily preclude the use of such evidence may impede the search for truth without providing any meaningful protection for privacy interests. In the Maryland case, for example, the only interest in privacy that was implicated was the defendant’s interest in not being convicted of a serious crime that he in fact committed.
Andrew Cohen at The Atlantic says he's "dead wrong."