A new trial would have been appropriate
Pamela Colloff is one of the most thorough reporters covering trials and convictions. I was especially intrigued by this passage: "He went on to find fault with the hearing itself, which he criticized for lacking “the adversarial role of the prosecutor” — a weakness, in his eyes, that rendered experts’ testimony less credible. With no opposing counsel to cross-examine the witnesses, he argued, “fresh opinions were offered but not probed.” Ultimately, Dozier wrote, “The court does not find an injustice nor that the petitioner is actually innocent based on new scientific evidence.”"
I am not a lawyer, but IMO a new trial would have been the place for cross-examination, one of the greatest strengths of the adversarial process.
