Rodney Reed: Death Row: Texas: New trial?..."The four-day hearing focused on statements attributed to Stites’ fiance, Jimmy Fennell, who defense lawyers say is the more likely suspect in the strangulation death of Stites. The statements — as well as recently developed forensic evidence — support a time line that makes it impossible for Reed to have killed Stites sometime after 3 a.m. on April 23, 1996, Reed’s lawyers argued."..."“There is no credible evidence that Jimmy Fennell arrived at home anytime later than what he testified to at trial,” (prosecutor) Ottoway told the judge. But Bryce Benjet, a defense lawyer with the Innocence Project of New York, said after the hearing that the controversy over Fennell’s statements allowed him to introduce important testimony by Dr. Michael Baden, a renowned forensic pathologist who concluded that Stites was killed before midnight. “We are confident that the court will know that the wrong man was convicted for this crime,” Benjet said. “The forensic evidence makes it scientifically and medically impossible for Rodney Reed to have committed this crime.”

QUOTE OF  THE DAY:

“Deny them the fruits of their corruption...,Lets’ try this case with all the evidence, not just the evidence the state feels like giving us.”

 

Defense lawyer Andrew MacRae in closing arguments.

------------------------------------------------------------------

 

STORY: "Rodney Reed hearing ends with sharp disagreements aired," by reporter Chuck Lindell, published by The American-Statesman on October 13, 2017.

GIST: "The hearing on death row inmate Rodney Reed’s bid for a new trial closed Friday with sharp disagreement between the prosecution and defense and the judge saying he expects to take six to eight weeks to finish his work on the case. Visiting Judge Doug Shaver’s decision will be in the form of recommendations for the Court of Criminal Appeals, which has the final say on whether Reed gets a new trial in the 1996 murder of Stacey Stites. The four-day hearing focused on statements attributed to Stites’ fiance, Jimmy Fennell, who defense lawyers say is the more likely suspect in the strangulation death of Stites. The statements — as well as recently developed forensic evidence — support a time line that makes it impossible for Reed to have killed Stites sometime after 3 a.m. on April 23, 1996, Reed’s lawyers argued.  The hearing revolved around an interview Curtis Davis, who described himself as Fennell’s best friend, gave last year to CNN in which he recalled Fennell saying he went out drinking and returned to the Giddings apartment he shared with Stites after she had fallen asleep. Fennell, who declined to testify at the hearing, had said he returned to the apartment around 8 p.m. and was with Stites until she left for work around 3 a.m. Reed’s lawyers argued that trial prosecutors had a duty to disclose that conversation, which took place the day Stites’ body was found along a rural road in Bastrop, because Davis was a Bastrop County sheriff’s officer at the time of Reed’s trial, and failure to share the information severely hampered Reed’s defense. “If the state had fulfilled its constitutional obligations (to disclose the Curtis-Fennel conversation), Mr. Reed’s lawyers, they would have bored down on that if they had known about the discrepancy in statements,” defense lawyer Andrew MacRae of Austin told the judge. “Deny them the fruits of their corruption,” MacRae said during closing arguments. “Lets’ try this case with all the evidence, not just the evidence the state feels like giving us.”.........“There is no credible evidence that Jimmy Fennell arrived at home anytime later than what he testified to at trial,” Ottoway told the judge. But Bryce Benjet, a defense lawyer with the Innocence Project of New York, said after the hearing that the controversy over Fennell’s statements allowed him to introduce important testimony by Dr. Michael Baden, a renowned forensic pathologist who concluded that Stites was killed before midnight. “We are confident that the court will know that the wrong man was convicted for this crime,” Benjet said. “The forensic evidence makes it scientifically and medically impossible for Rodney Reed to have committed this crime.”"

The entire story can be found at:

http://www.statesman.com/news/rodney-reed-hearing-ends-with-sharp-disagreements-aired/4e56IznX8E8c3syugE6OJJ/

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy; Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.