GIST: "When a Texas jury sentenced Rodney Reed to death for the murder of a 19-year-old woman, the jurors did so without knowing whether Reed’s DNA lay on the murder weapon.
Reed and his lawyers have repeatedly sought post-conviction DNA testing that they believe will exonerate Reed and spare him from the death sentence he faces after he was tried for the rape and strangulation of Stacey Stites in 1996. But multiple courts have denied his request, arguing that Reed failed to reasonably prove the new evidence would reverse the trial’s outcome.
A substantial body of new evidence and witness testimony raises doubts about whether Texas convicted the right person in this case. We are glad the Supreme Court will take up the matter, and we hope it clarifies what the proper timeline is for seeking DNA testing of evidence after a conviction.
A state law gave Reed two years to file a motion to request a federal court hearing on his request to test the belt that was used to strangle Stites. And so Reed moved in 2019 to pursue what would likely be his final recourse for a DNA test. He asked a federal district court to determine whether the state’s refusal to test the belt compromised his right to due process
That request to the federal court came less than two years after the state’s highest criminal court issued a final ruling from Texas denying his petition for DNA testing.
But federal courts also said Reed was too late. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that the clock for a request to test DNA began counting down in 2014, after the state’s trial court first denied Reed’s request. Reed’s lawyers contend that the two-year window started after the state’s appeals court made its decision.
This is a matter of life and death, and the state has the utmost duty to ensure it convicted the right person. It’s not unreasonable that one would wait for a state appeals court to rule before turning to federal courts for relief. After all, in Reed’s case, the state’s Court of Criminal Appeals could have decided to reverse a lower court’s decision and grant DNA testing.
Now the Supreme Court will decide whether the other courts got the timeline wrong.
DNA played a key role in Reed’s conviction. His genetic material was found in Stites’ body, which Reed said was the result of consensual sex. He had been previously charged — though not convicted — in several other rape cases.
No other physical evidence linked Reed to Stites’ murder. And in recent years, new evidence has surfaced, including witnesses who say Stites and Reed were in a romantic relationship, along with testimony implicating Stites’ fiancé.
Texas ranks third in the nation for the number of people who have been wrongfully sentenced to death, according to the Death Penalty Information Center, a nonprofit that studies capital punishment. That should make us all pause, particularly our courts.
Today, Texas law would have required the murder weapon to be tested for DNA before the trial began. It was a grave oversight that authorities investigating Stites’ death did not test her belt. Was justice served in her case? We hope the Supreme Court’s decision will make it possible to answer that question."
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;
