PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I adopt the words of the formidable Ohio criminal defence lawyer lawyer/blogger Jeff Gamso..."JUST TEST THE FUCKING DNA.
http://gamso-forthedefense.blogspot.com/2018/05/what-is-truth-said-jesting-pilate.html
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.
----------------------------------------------------------
PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "In a summary of the evidence in the case, prosecutors said that Travis County’s then-Chief Medical Examiner Richard Bayardo estimated Stites’ time of death in April 1996 was at 3 a.m., give or take four hours. However, that statement varies from transcripts of Reed’s 1998 trial. Under questioning by the state’s prosecutor, Lisa Tanner, Bayardo said that he estimated the time of Stites’ death around 3 a.m. April 23, “give or take one or two hours.” Reed’s defense attorneys have argued over the years that Stites died hours before the state claimed, which would help prove Reeds’ innocence. They also have argued that Reed and Stites were having an affair and that her fiance, Jimmy Fennell, killed her after learning of their consensual sexual relationship. Fennell was an early suspect in Stites’ death, before DNA tests linked semen found in her body to Reed. Reed’s semen was presented as evidence during trial that he had raped and killed Stites. Fennell was recently released from prison after serving a 10-year sentence for the kidnapping and sexual assault of a woman in his custody when he was a Georgetown police officer in 2007."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE OF THE DAY: "Texas leads the nation in executions, and its hostility to post-conviction DNA testing notwithstanding, Texas also leads the nation in DNA exonerations,” the filing (by Reed's attornies) stated. “Exonerations may erode confidence in the integrity of the criminal justice system, especially in older cases where local law enforcement often failed to adhere to current professional standards, but the continued incarceration (or execution) of innocent people is far more corrosive.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------
STORY: "Arguments filed with U.S. Supreme Court over Rodney Reed case," by reporter Brandon Mulder, published by The American-Statesman on May 29, 2018.
GIST: "Defense attorneys and state prosecutors involved in Rodney Reed’s capital murder case have submitted arguments to the U.S. Supreme Court over Reed’s request for new DNA testing of the murder weapon and other crime scene evidence from the 1996 strangulation of Stacey Stites. Reed was sentenced to death in 1998 for Stites’ murder. Earlier this year, Reed asked the nation’s high court to review a state criminal appeals court decision that denied additional DNA testing after the court found the crime scene items had been contaminated over the years due to their repeated handling by lawyers, prosecutors, court employees and jurors. That level of contamination makes skin-cell DNA identification unreliable, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled in 2017. Reed, through his attorney Bryce Benjet of the Innocence Project, is asking the Supreme Court to review Chapter 64 of Texas’ Code of Criminal Procedure, a 2005 state law that allows an inmate to request new DNA testing that wasn’t previously available during trial. Reed’s attorneys say that if the Supreme Court allows Texas to strike down Reed’s request for new DNA testing under Chapter 64, there could be ramifications in other states with similar laws. “Because many states have enacted post-conviction DNA testing statutes similar to Chapter 64, the ramifications of the CCA’s ruling are of national constitutional significance,” Reed’s defense attorneys wrote in a May 18 filing. “Texas leads the nation in executions, and its hostility to post-conviction DNA testing notwithstanding, Texas also leads the nation in DNA exonerations,” the filing stated. “Exonerations may erode confidence in the integrity of the criminal justice system, especially in older cases where local law enforcement often failed to adhere to current professional standards, but the continued incarceration (or execution) of innocent people is far more corrosive.” Reed’s attorneys say that a denial of new DNA testing by the state court is a violation of Reed’s civil rights protected under the 14th Amendment. In a May 7 filing, state prosecutors contend that because Reed is challenging the interpretation of state law procedures — Chapter 64 — the matter is not a constitutional issue and the Supreme Court should have no jurisdiction over this case. And because Chapter 64 has a “chain of custody” requirement, which ensures that physical evidence used in DNA testing is free from contamination, Texas courts should have sole jurisdiction. “Chain of custody, in this context, is rightly focused on the integrity of the biological material itself, not the item on which it is found. There is nothing irrational or unconstitutional in ensuring the integrity of biological material through chain-of-custody requirements,” the filing read. Citing precedent, prosecutors argued the Supreme Court should hold “no supervisory power over state judicial proceedings and may intervene only to correct wrongs of a constitutional dimension.” The state’s latest filing also details a summary of the crime scene, Reed’s trial and his post-conviction proceedings, which have spanned more than 15 years. In a summary of the evidence in the case, prosecutors said that Travis County’s then-Chief Medical Examiner Richard Bayardo estimated Stites’ time of death in April 1996 was at 3 a.m., give or take four hours. However, that statement varies from transcripts of Reed’s 1998 trial. Under questioning by the state’s prosecutor, Lisa Tanner, Bayardo said that he estimated the time of Stites’ death around 3 a.m. April 23, “give or take one or two hours.” Reed’s defense attorneys have argued over the years that Stites died hours before the state claimed, which would help prove Reeds’ innocence. They also have argued that Reed and Stites were having an affair and that her fiance, Jimmy Fennell, killed her after learning of their consensual sexual relationship. Fennell was an early suspect in Stites’ death, before DNA tests linked semen found in her body to Reed. Reed’s semen was presented as evidence during trial that he had raped and killed Stites. Fennell was recently released from prison after serving a 10-year sentence for the kidnapping and sexual assault of a woman in his custody when he was a Georgetown police officer in 2007."
The entire story can be read at:
https://www.statesman.com/news/local/arguments-filed-with-supreme-court-over-rodney-reed-case/j6uk2PFCumuN3ssD7XfzVN/
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/c
The entire story can be found at:
https://www.statesman.com/news/local/arguments-filed-with-supreme-court-over-rodney-reed-case/j6uk2PFCumuN3ssD7XfzVN/
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/c
The entire story can be found at:
https://www.statesman.com/news/local/arguments-filed-with-supreme-court-over-rodney-reed-case/j6uk2PFCumuN3ssD7XfzVN/
