Ultimately, the untested instincts of students play a crucial role in the case selection process, and even with extensive supervision, like that employed by the NEIP, the analysis of evidence, interviewing of the prisoner, and evaluation of the totality of circumstances in a case are left in the untried hands of a law student.
For example, the NEIP has been able to create a policy of only taking on cases that fall within Categories 1 and 2.
Finally, under the tests articulated in the NEIP guidelines, cases in which a sample of biological evidence is too small to yield accurate results should not be granted testing.
The NEIP already recognizes the value of payment as another means of screening petitions.
Despite its mandate that petitioners advance at least part of the costs of the tests, the NEIP has still handled a significant number (172) of cases in which the guilt of the petitioners was confirmed by the test.
172) Interview with Jennifer Chunias, supra note 79 (Chunias stated that "under five" of the cases dealt with by the NEIP have resulted in confirmations of guilt.