Radley Balko, aka "The Agitator", has another good article on the net, this one for Slate. He argues that it would be prudent for prosecutors to test all probative DNA evidence before trial, rather than argue whether more should be tested after trial. He uses the Hank Skinner case as an example of the problems associated with the "Test Some and Argue More" later approach.
Given the length of his article, he provides what may be the best and most balanced summary of Hank's complex case I've seen so far. If you are following Hank's case, Radley's article is certainly worth a read. It also has a rather unflattering picture of Rick Perry, perhaps the most unflattering I've seen so far.
That makes it tough to resist, doesn't it?