What more is needed? There is evidence proving this man's innocence! Is it not supposed to be "innocent until proven guilty"? How is this just by an means? Are we now using intuition and gut feelings as evidence? Is it okay to turn a blind eye to DNA evidence? Release the guy, unless you have proof that he is guilty.
The main job of anyone who works in the criminal justice system is to punish criminals and ensure that justice is served. If more information comes out showing that they made a mistake and that someone who actually committed a crime is not being punished, your job as a public servant is to make sure that everything is right. It seems very obvious that Devonia Inman is innocent. He should get a new trial and when he is found to be innocent, he should be given reparations for losing a huge part of his life for no reason. Then the person who is actually responsible should be tried. It's unbelievable to me that these officials refuse to even hold a new trial, even though Inman is clearly not guilty. They should lose their jobs, since they are not serving the people.
Devonia Inman should be released from jail based on DNA evidence. The man is serving a life sentence for murder, but DNA proves he is not the killer. In fact, it shows another man committed the crime. That person should be tried for the crime. It is a travesty to both the victim and Devonia Inman.
When the evidence points to another suspect the, now falsely accused, suspect should be given leave of his cell. While Devonia Inman should not be sent home free, house arrest would be a viable option until proven with certified evidence that he was the murderer. Scientific evidence should take priority over the human word.