I still feel that he should receive a new trial though.
I'm not so sure, he's been found guilty in '86, he had an appeal in 2002 and the verdict was upheld. He can't just keep appealing over and over for a retrial to get the verdict he wants. Not unless there is evidence to warrant such a retrial.
I agree that all the evidence should be released and I'm confused why more hasn't been done to obtain it's release. But I would also say that upon it's release (when/if that ever happens), it needs to looked at to determine if a retrial should or shouldn't take place and not before.
I don't think I can say he should have a retrial based on evidence which may or may not exist in those files.
That's my take on things anyway.