Postconviction relief and DNA: assuming Osborne’s claims can be pursued using §1983, he has no constitutional right to obtain postconviction access to the State’s evidence for DNA testing; but Alaska courts are addressing how to apply existing discovery and postconviction relief laws to this novel technology; Osborne has already been found guilty and therefore has only a limited liberty interest in postconviction relief; the question is whether consideration of Osborne’s claim within the framework of the State’s postconviction relief procedures “offends some fundamental principle of justice” or “transgresses any recognized principle of fundamental fairness in operation.”; there is nothing inadequate about Alaska’s postconviction relief procedures in general or its methods for applying those procedures to persons seeking access to evidence for DNA testing. The State provides a substantive right to be released on a sufficiently compelling showing of new evidence that establishes innocence. It also provides for discovery in postconviction proceedings, and has—through judicial decision—specified that such discovery is available to those seeking access to evidence for DNA testing. These procedures are similar to those provided by federal law and the laws of other States, and they satisfy due process (U.S.S.Ct., 18.06.09, District Attorney’s Office v. Osborne, C.J. Roberts).