So, why shouldn't the defendant be prosecuted for aggravated perjury, having made what he knew was a false claim of innocence?

DNA reaffirms guilt of rapist 5:03 PM CT
05:03 PM CDT on Tuesday, June 12, 2007

From Staff Reports
DNA test results have reaffirmed the guilt of a man convicted of raping a 12-year-old girl as she walked to church.

The Dallas County district attorney's office announced Tuesday that tests have confirmed Culberson Henry�s role in the 1993 crime. Mr. Henry was convicted of aggravated sexual assault on a child under the age of 14 in 1994 and sentenced to 40 years in prison.

Mr. Henry filed a motion for DNA testing in 2002, but test results the next year were inconclusive, the district attorney's office said. In 2006, the Actual Innocence Clinic at the University of Texas� School of Law requested a retest with more sophisticated technology. The request was granted in September and results confirmed Mr. Henry�s guilt.

�The recent DNA results in the Culberson [Henry] case further emphasize that post-conviction DNA testing not only frees the wrongfully convicted periodically, but equally important, it reaffirms guilt of violent crimes in many cases,� district attorney Craig Watkins said in a statement.

Wouldn't that have a "chilling effect" on others making false claims of innocense?

Come to think of it, maybe that's a good reason to prosecute him for agg. perjury.

Come on, it happened in 1994. Maybe he just forgot that he really did it. After all these years of falsely claiming innocence, he might start to actually believe it.