Isn't the truth worth anything these days?

The Supreme Court, in a 5-to-4 decision, decided today that convicts do not have a right under the Constitution to obtain DNA testing to try to prove their innocence after being found guilty. Basically indicating that even if the advanced DNA testing now available would be able to prove a person's innocence after the fact, people who are already in jail do not have a right to it. WTF?

One of the major issues brought up in this argument, was that the defendant who brought this before the Supreme Court was not very lovable or believably innocent. As was stated in the NYT article:

Justice Scalia said he was struck by the absence of a full-throated declaration
of innocence from the defendant, and quoted from a sworn statement Mr. Osborne
had submitted to the state courts: "I have no doubt whatsoever that retesting of
the condom will prove once and for all time...”

Here, Justice Scalia
observed, a listener would expect to hear the words “my innocence.” But the
defendant did not say that, saying instead “either my guilt or innocence.”

But I would argue that in fact the defendant was exactly correct in what he said. The more accurate DNA test would in fact prove once and for all time whether a defendant was guilty or innocent. And wouldn't information of either sort be useful to the courts? If a defendant is found guilty, once and for all, then maybe they would stop the insanely time consuming and expensive appeal process they are probably going through. If they are found innocent then maybe they will be able to actually clear their name and walk out of their wrongful imprisonment. Either way, it seems to me that to enable the truth to be found through DNA testing is a win-win for justice and the court system in the long run. So seriously Supreme Court, why would you want to deny people the right to more accurate evidence?

NYT Article