We need laws in every state to allow DNA tests for people convicted using evidence that wasn't originally tested for DNA, but this should only be allowed where this type of evidence was used to convict the person.
but this should only be allowed where this type of evidence was used to convict the person Why? If there is DNA evidence which exonerates someone convicted of the crime, why would it matter if the evidence were used in his first trial? In this case, the point is that DNA technology was not availble for the original trial.