PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "The third prosecution expert, Dr. Roberto Bayardo, the former Travis County medical examiner, acknowledged in a 2012 affidavit that he was mistaken when he testified at Reed’s trial that the sperm cells must have been deposited “quite recently.” Bayardo also said testimony about a 24- to 26-hour time limit for intact sperm cells was not “medically or scientifically supported.” According to Reed’s new filing, the time frame established by the three prosecution experts was the linchpin of Reed’s conviction, establishing a time frame where only he could have been the killer and contradicting his claim of a consensual sexual relationship with Stites. “Faced with this evidence at trial, the jury had little choice but to convict,” the filing said."
STORY: "New filing: Rodney Reed conviction based on mistaken science," by reporter Chuck Lindell, published by The American-Statesman on June 27, 2018.
SUB-HEADING: "The U.S. Supreme Court rejected Texas death row inmate Rodney Reed’s request for DNA testing."
GIST: "Defense lawyers say new evidence shows that Rodney Reed of Bastrop
was sentenced to death based on testimony from scientific experts that
is now acknowledged to have been be wrong.
Testimony from the three experts was crucial to placing Reed at the scene of the 1996 crime at a time when only he could have strangled Stacey Stites, and defense lawyers told the state’s highest criminal court that the new evidence provided the last piece of the puzzle needed to undermine Reed’s conviction. “Mr. Reed has presented new scientific evidence which repudiates the state’s expert opinions offered at trial and establishes that the state’s theory of guilt is scientifically impossible,” lawyers told the Court of Criminal Appeals in a petition filed Tuesday evening. The new filing asks the court to find Reed innocent — a highly unlikely outcome because prosecutors continue to believe that Reed is guilty — or return his case to Bastrop so Visiting Judge Doug Shaver can weigh the new evidence. Shaver has already recommended that the Court of Criminal Appeals deny Reed’s request for a new trial based on other evidence presented during a four-day hearing before the judge, including forensic experts who said Stites was killed when only her fiance, Jimmy Fennell, could have strangled her. The appeals court has not yet ruled on that matter, and defense lawyers presented the new information on the testimony of the prosecution’s scientific experts as an amendment to that appeal. According to Reed’s lawyers, the mistaken testimony centered on sperm cells found inside Stites that DNA testing concluded belonged to Reed. After first telling investigators he did not know the murder victim, Reed later said he and Stites were involved in an affair and last had consensual sex several days before she was killed. But prosecutors presented experts who said the condition of Reed’s sperm cells — with the tails still attached — showed that the semen had been deposited no more than 26 hours before the cells were examined, or around the time Stites had been killed in April 1996, because intact sperm cells can last no longer inside the human body. The finding bolstered prosecution arguments that Stites had been raped and killed by Reed as she drove from the Giddings apartment she shared with Fennell to her early-morning job at a Bastrop grocery store. But according to Reed’s latest filing, the Department of Public Safety recently acknowledged that its serologist, Karen Blakely, testified at Reed’s trial that sperm cells can remain intact for no longer than 26 hours based on a study that had “potential limitations” based on the way data was collected. Blakely also failed to testify that the study acknowledged separate research indicating that intact sperm cells can be found 72 hours later, according to an April 30 DPS letter to defense lawyers — a time frame that supports Reed’s defense, the new filing argued. In addition, Bode Cellmark Forensics Laboratory — which employed another prosecution expert, analyst Meghan Clement — acknowledged that Clement exceeded her expertise when she testified that sperm cannot remain intact beyond 24 hours based on her 10½ years as a serologist. Another Bode Cellmark analyst provided an affidavit saying that she had never encountered intact sperm because the processes used to prepare samples “break down the tails.” The third prosecution expert, Dr. Roberto Bayardo, the former Travis County medical examiner, acknowledged in a 2012 affidavit that he was mistaken when he testified at Reed’s trial that the sperm cells must have been deposited “quite recently.” Bayardo also said testimony about a 24- to 26-hour time limit for intact sperm cells was not “medically or scientifically supported.” According to Reed’s new filing, the time frame established by the three prosecution experts was the linchpin of Reed’s conviction, establishing a time frame where only he could have been the killer and contradicting his claim of a consensual sexual relationship with Stites. “Faced with this evidence at trial, the jury had little choice but to convict,” the filing said. Defense lawyers said the new evidence bolsters other claims presented in earlier appeals, including a co-worker who said Stites discussed having an affair with Reed and two others who recalled seeing Stites and Reed together in Bastrop. The three witnesses did not come forward until long after Reed was sentenced to death, the filing said. In a separate appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected Reed’s request for DNA testing of crime scene evidence. Defense lawyer Bryce Benjet said the next step will be a federal lawsuit seeking a court order for testing on items the killer probably touched in search of skin cells and other DNA evidence. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals declined to order the tests, saying contamination concerns raised questions about the effectiveness of a DNA analysis."
The entire story can be read at:
Testimony from the three experts was crucial to placing Reed at the scene of the 1996 crime at a time when only he could have strangled Stacey Stites, and defense lawyers told the state’s highest criminal court that the new evidence provided the last piece of the puzzle needed to undermine Reed’s conviction. “Mr. Reed has presented new scientific evidence which repudiates the state’s expert opinions offered at trial and establishes that the state’s theory of guilt is scientifically impossible,” lawyers told the Court of Criminal Appeals in a petition filed Tuesday evening. The new filing asks the court to find Reed innocent — a highly unlikely outcome because prosecutors continue to believe that Reed is guilty — or return his case to Bastrop so Visiting Judge Doug Shaver can weigh the new evidence. Shaver has already recommended that the Court of Criminal Appeals deny Reed’s request for a new trial based on other evidence presented during a four-day hearing before the judge, including forensic experts who said Stites was killed when only her fiance, Jimmy Fennell, could have strangled her. The appeals court has not yet ruled on that matter, and defense lawyers presented the new information on the testimony of the prosecution’s scientific experts as an amendment to that appeal. According to Reed’s lawyers, the mistaken testimony centered on sperm cells found inside Stites that DNA testing concluded belonged to Reed. After first telling investigators he did not know the murder victim, Reed later said he and Stites were involved in an affair and last had consensual sex several days before she was killed. But prosecutors presented experts who said the condition of Reed’s sperm cells — with the tails still attached — showed that the semen had been deposited no more than 26 hours before the cells were examined, or around the time Stites had been killed in April 1996, because intact sperm cells can last no longer inside the human body. The finding bolstered prosecution arguments that Stites had been raped and killed by Reed as she drove from the Giddings apartment she shared with Fennell to her early-morning job at a Bastrop grocery store. But according to Reed’s latest filing, the Department of Public Safety recently acknowledged that its serologist, Karen Blakely, testified at Reed’s trial that sperm cells can remain intact for no longer than 26 hours based on a study that had “potential limitations” based on the way data was collected. Blakely also failed to testify that the study acknowledged separate research indicating that intact sperm cells can be found 72 hours later, according to an April 30 DPS letter to defense lawyers — a time frame that supports Reed’s defense, the new filing argued. In addition, Bode Cellmark Forensics Laboratory — which employed another prosecution expert, analyst Meghan Clement — acknowledged that Clement exceeded her expertise when she testified that sperm cannot remain intact beyond 24 hours based on her 10½ years as a serologist. Another Bode Cellmark analyst provided an affidavit saying that she had never encountered intact sperm because the processes used to prepare samples “break down the tails.” The third prosecution expert, Dr. Roberto Bayardo, the former Travis County medical examiner, acknowledged in a 2012 affidavit that he was mistaken when he testified at Reed’s trial that the sperm cells must have been deposited “quite recently.” Bayardo also said testimony about a 24- to 26-hour time limit for intact sperm cells was not “medically or scientifically supported.” According to Reed’s new filing, the time frame established by the three prosecution experts was the linchpin of Reed’s conviction, establishing a time frame where only he could have been the killer and contradicting his claim of a consensual sexual relationship with Stites. “Faced with this evidence at trial, the jury had little choice but to convict,” the filing said. Defense lawyers said the new evidence bolsters other claims presented in earlier appeals, including a co-worker who said Stites discussed having an affair with Reed and two others who recalled seeing Stites and Reed together in Bastrop. The three witnesses did not come forward until long after Reed was sentenced to death, the filing said. In a separate appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected Reed’s request for DNA testing of crime scene evidence. Defense lawyer Bryce Benjet said the next step will be a federal lawsuit seeking a court order for testing on items the killer probably touched in search of skin cells and other DNA evidence. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals declined to order the tests, saying contamination concerns raised questions about the effectiveness of a DNA analysis."
The entire story can be read at:
https://www.statesman.com/news/new-filing-rodney-reed-conviction-based-mistaken-science/7hxsZp4uJx2qeUhkqufw0K/
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
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
