This is not correct. I have read the ruling, and what the federal system is doing is asking the petitioner to use the procedures established in the state of conviction to obtain the same result, rather than asking the federal court system to make law in an area that the states (46/50) have legislated in (excepting the state in question, which has proposed legislation, however that is not relevant) or have procedures for dealing with new evidence.

The particular DNA test requested by the prisoner when he did pursue his case in the state courts was available at trial, and was not used because his attorney believed it would be harmful to his defense. This is an established principal – if evidence is available at your trial and you choose not to avail yourself of it, then it is never available as ‘new evidence’.

If the prisoner returns his request to the state, and asks for the new test (that was not available), it is likely his petition would be granted under the existing law of the state. That is what the ruling says.

(Let’s not go into the OTHER evidence in the case)