PASSAGE ONE OF THE DAY: "The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that aa Texas death row inmate can sue state officials in federal court to pursue post-conviction DNA testing, a decision that could significantly impact how Texas provides access to forensic evidence after conviction."
PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "Gutierrez, who admitted being present at the scene of the 1999 robbery and murder of 85-year-old Escolastica Harrison, seeks DNA testing to prove he did not directly participate in the murder, a distinction he argues would make him ineligible for the death penalty. Texas courts had repeatedly denied his requests, reasoning that even if DNA evidence excluded him from the crime scene, it wouldn't prove his innocence of capital murder. In 2020, a federal district court found Texas's post-conviction DNA testing law unconstitutional, as it limited testing to claims of innocence of the conviction, not innocence of the death penalty. This decision was later reversed by the Fifth Circuit, which argued that federal courts lacked jurisdiction. The Supreme Court's decision clarifies that a prisoner's constitutional right to sue remains, even if prosecutors might find other reasons to deny DNA testing."
--------------------------------------------------------
STORY: "Supreme Court Opens Door For Texas Death Row Inmates To Seek DNA Testing," by Crime and Justice Reporter Maria Hernandez, published by The Tampa Free Press.
SUB-HEADING: "Federal Courts Now an Avenue for Inmates to Challenge Texas DNA Testing Laws."
GIST: "The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that aa Texas death row inmate can sue state officials in federal court to pursue post-conviction DNA testing, a decision that could significantly impact how Texas provides access to forensic evidence after conviction.
Gutierrez, who admitted being present at the scene of the 1999 roIn a 6-3 decision, the high court reversed a Fifth Circuit ruling, finding that Ruben Gutierrez has standing under federal civil rights law to seek a declaratory judgment challenging Texas's DNA testing procedures as unconstitutional.
While the ruling doesn't guarantee Gutierrez will receive the testing, it allows his case to proceed in federal court, a crucial development for inmates in states with restrictive testing laws.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the majority, stated that a "declaratory judgment in Gutierrez's favor would redress his injury by removing the allegedly unconstitutional barrier" erected by Texas law.
Gutierrez, who admitted being present at the scene of the 1999 robbery and murder of 85-year-old Escolastica Harrison, seeks DNA testing to prove he did not directly participate in the murder, a distinction he argues would make him ineligible for the death penalty. Texas courts had repeatedly denied his requests, reasoning that even if DNA evidence excluded him from the crime scene, it wouldn't prove his innocence of capital murder.
In 2020, a federal district court found Texas's post-conviction DNA testing law unconstitutional, as it limited testing to claims of innocence of the conviction, not innocence of the death penalty. This decision was later reversed by the Fifth Circuit, which argued that federal courts lacked jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court's decision clarifies that a prisoner's constitutional right to sue remains, even if prosecutors might find other reasons to deny DNA testing. Justices Neil Gorsuch, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas dissented from the majority opinion.
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. 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.
SEE BREAKDOWN OF SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG, AT THE LINK BELOW: HL:
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985
———————————————————————————————
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
