Huntley Ruff was an obvious suspect.</p><p>A recent parolee with two rape convictions, he was working in a downtown Kansas City hotel kitchen on the night in 1984 when someone in a chef&#8217;s uniform robbed and sexually assaulted a hotel guest.</p><p>The victim identified Ruff as her attacker. A Jackson County jury found him guilty. He was sentenced to 160 years in prison.</p><p>Now, more than 20 years later, Ruff is fighting for DNA testing that he hopes will show what he has claimed all along: He didn&#8217;t do it.</p><p>Without having a hearing, a Jackson County judge in 2006 denied the DNA request, ruling that Ruff failed to show that under Missouri law he was entitled to the testing.</p><p>Ruff appealed, and the Missouri Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. Oral arguments are set for this morning. A decision could come in several months.</p><p>Ruff, now 62, is being held at the Jefferson City Correctional Center.</p><p>At the time of his trial, DNA testing was not available. Blood-type testing on semen recovered from the victim&#8217;s body and clothing was &#8220;inconclusive.&#8221;</p><p>Although Ruff filed the initial testing motion without an attorney, he is being represented on the appeal by Ellen Suni, dean of the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law. She is asking the Supreme Court to order the testing or send the case back to Jackson County so Ruff can have a hearing on his request.</p><p>&#8220;DNA testing provides a unique, scientifically sound opportunity to obtain both accuracy and finality in criminal cases,&#8221; Suni wrote in Ruff&#8217;s case.</p><p>The Missouri attorney general&#8217;s office argues that Ruff&#8217;s DNA motion was properly denied because he failed to allege any facts to show he is entitled to the testing.</p><p>Requiring such facts in a post-conviction request such as Ruff&#8217;s is a means to differentiate between legitimate and frivolous claims, attorneys for the state argue.</p><p>Missouri law &#8220;demonstrates that the state wants DNA testing to be available where such testing would avoid incarcerating an innocent person,&#8221; they stated in a reply to Ruff&#8217;s Supreme Court filing. &#8220;But it does not want, and it cannot afford, testing in every case.&#8221;</p><p>Ruff has maintained that he did not rob and rape the woman in 1984. But his record of violent attacks against women dates to 1963 when he was 17 and robbed the wife of a special assistant to President John F. Kennedy in Washington, D.C.</p><p>He was convicted of robbery and rape in 1966, also in Washington, and in 1972 when he was on work-release from prison. He was paroled in 1984 just a few months before the hotel attack.