The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Alaska case where the defendant is requesting access to the forensic evidence against in order that DNA tests can establish his guilt or innocence.
There is absolutely no valid reason I can think of that Alaska or any other state should deny access to evidence in a case. In this instance, the offender is willing to bear the expense of testing, so the case for allowing access to the evidence is even more compelling.
Why would the government not allow a defendant access to the evidence against him or her? Isn't the state interested in determining the validity of the charge and/or the conviction? By contesting this case, it makes it seem that the government has something to hide. This attitude contributes to the decline in confidence in the criminal justice system.