the issue is not whether the defendant was allowed to have an expert to evaluate the DNA evidence, but rather was the defendant denied the right to have the DNA tests administered. Polk is not applicable. Nevertheless, it has never been said that a defendant is only entitled to expert witnesses where the State proposes to put forth experts on the subject. ¶ 12. This Court has held since Polk that “[determination of whether the State must pay for an expert witness for an indigent defendant must be made on a case by case basis.” Coleman v. State, 697 So.2d at 782 (citing Davis v. State, 374 So.2d 1293, 1297 (Miss.1979)). “This Court has previously held that DNA evidence is not always valuable enough to warrant a trial delay.” Id.; see Rhymes v. State, 638 So.2d 1270, 1274 (Miss.1994) (<HOLDING>). “Tennessee and North Carolina have held that
holding that trial delay for dna testing was attributable to the state but was mere negligence holding that there is no postconviction due process right to biological evidence for purposes of dna testing holding that there was no ineffective assistance for failing to hire a dna expert because the defenses theory was that the defendants dna was planted so the dna evidence would not seem to be an issue holding that a claim seeking dna testing is cognizable under section 1983 holding that no  1983 claim exists for injunctive relief to compel dna testing