Virginia possesses physical evidence that could exonerate felons who have been incarcerated for more than 20 years, but the state isn't telling those prisoners about it. Instead, state investigators pick which scraps of blood, semen, hair and skin to test for DNA comparison. The cause of justice demands that the state notify felons new evidence has surfaced.

For the last few years, the state Department of Forensic Science has been trolling through more than half a million paper files generated between 1973 and 1988. That search turned up 2,215 pieces of biological material that include a suspect's name.

Prosecutors get to decide what to do with all of that evidence. They look at the facts of the case and determine whether they think a DNA test is warranted. If it is, they alone receive the results and conclude if they shed any new light on the case.

Nothing against the state's prosecutors, but the American system of justice is based on an assumption that the state cannot be trusted solely to decide what evidence is relevant. History reveals too many incidents when overzealous prosecutors made the wrong choice or sought to protect egos at the expense of doing the right thing.

Unless Virginia is taking its lead from the White House's treatment of detainees, it should let prisoners and their attorneys know what new evidence is available. Those prisoners could then decide whether to pursue DNA testing independently of the state.

Yet the state Forensic Science Board does not think that is appropriate. On a 6-5 vote, it chose to keep prisoners and the General Assembly in the dark. Some rare felons can find out there is new evidence available, but they must actively pursue it.

This is no mere academic exercise. So far, fresh DNA tests have cleared five men wrongly convicted of rape.

Those opposed to notification raised concerns about the cost of testing, difficulty tracking down each felon and sending a message that the state doesn't trust police and prosecutors. None of those inconveniences is particularly convincing when the alternative is to deny a wrongfully convicted prisoner an opportunity to prove his innocence.

Lawmakers do not need the forensic board to notify them before they do something. They are in session and can ensure prisoners find out about new evidence.