PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Prosecutors have fought to deny Reed access to the evidence for about five years, arguing in court documents that testing would not be helpful in solving the Stites murder because the items had been contaminated by repeated handling during and after Reed’s trial. In addition, several items were stored in the same box but not packaged separately, allowing potential DNA to mingle, they said. Siding with prosecutors, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals rejected Reed’s request for court-ordered testing in a unanimous ruling in 2017, saying problems with the chain of custody of the evidence raised questions about contamination as well as serious doubts that DNA testing could produce reliable results. Reed’s lawyers argued that new techniques can filter out or identify extraneous DNA, but the U.S. Supreme Court declined Reed’s request to review the Texas ruling last summer. In the lawsuit filed Thursday in Austin, defense lawyers argued that the Texas appeals court violated the U.S. Constitution by placing extra conditions on Reed’s access to DNA testing — improperly inventing a contamination exception that is not part of the law. The petition seeks a court order requiring prosecutors and law enforcement to release the evidence for testing. “Proceeding with Mr. Reed’s execution while arbitrarily denying DNA testing capable of proving his innocence would violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment,” the lawsuit said."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STORY: "Federal lawsuit seeks DNA testing for death row’s Rodney Reed," by reporter Chuck Lindell, published by The Austin American-Statesman on August 8, 2019.
GIST: "Lawyers for death row inmate Rodney Reed, who has a Nov. 20 execution date, filed a federal lawsuit Thursday arguing that his rights were violated because prosecutors and state courts have repeatedly denied his requests for DNA testing of crime scene evidence. Reed, sentenced to death for the 1996 strangulation murder of Stacey Stites in Bastrop County, has argued that DNA testing could support his claims of innocence. Reed’s lawyers want to test evidence that was probably touched by the killer — including Stites’ clothing and two pieces of the woven belt used to strangle her — to determine if modern techniques can reveal skin cells and other DNA-bearing evidence. “If this case were investigated today, the murder weapon would unquestionably have been tested and could provide evidence of Mr. Reed’s innocence,” said defense lawyer Bryce Benjet with the Innocence Project of New York. “It simply makes no sense that the state would attempt to execute a person without conducting this basic forensic investigation.” Prosecutors have fought to deny Reed access to the evidence for about five years, arguing in court documents that testing would not be helpful in solving the Stites murder because the items had been contaminated by repeated handling during and after Reed’s trial. In addition, several items were stored in the same box but not packaged separately, allowing potential DNA to mingle, they said. Siding with prosecutors, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals rejected Reed’s request for court-ordered testing in a unanimous ruling in 2017, saying problems with the chain of custody of the evidence raised questions about contamination as well as serious doubts that DNA testing could produce reliable results. Reed’s lawyers argued that new techniques can filter out or identify extraneous DNA, but the U.S. Supreme Court declined Reed’s request to review the Texas ruling last summer. In the lawsuit filed Thursday in Austin, defense lawyers argued that the Texas appeals court violated the U.S. Constitution by placing extra conditions on Reed’s access to DNA testing — improperly inventing a contamination exception that is not part of the law. The petition seeks a court order requiring prosecutors and law enforcement to release the evidence for testing. “Proceeding with Mr. Reed’s execution while arbitrarily denying DNA testing capable of proving his innocence would violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment,” the lawsuit said. The Supreme Court rejected Reed’s DNA appeal in June 2018. Benjet said he waited to file Thursday’s lawsuit to give time for the Legislature to act on House Bill 3424 by state Rep. Senfronia Thompson, D-Houston, which would have made evidence more available for testing.The bill passed the Texas House 132-0, but the Senate did not act on it, and HB 3424 died when the legislative session ended in May."
The entire story can be read at:
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.