Posted on 04/20/2023 6:16:46 AM PDT by Red Badger
The Supreme Court will allow a death-row inmate’s request for DNA testing he believes will prove his innocence to proceed.
Rodney Reed was convicted over two decades ago for the 1996 murder of 19-year old Stacey Stites, with whom he was having an affair, though he has consistantly claimed innocence. After state courts denied his motion for DNA testing, Reed sued in federal court, arguing that Texas’ DNA testing law did not provide procedural due process.
In a 6-3 Wednesday ruling, the Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit’s decision, which held that Reed waited too long after the two-year statute of limitations to file his federal lawsuit. The Court concluded that the statute of limitations begins at the end of state-court litigation, not before the appeal.
“[S]ignificant systemic benefits ensue from starting the statute of limitations clock when the state litigation in DNA testing cases like Reed’s has concluded,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the majority opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
“If any due process flaws lurk in the DNA testing law, the state appellate process may cure those flaws, thereby rendering a federal [civil rights claim] suit unnecessary,” he continued. “And if the state appellate court construes the DNA testing statute, that construction will streamline and focus subsequent [civil rights claim] proceedings.”
Reed initially requested DNA testing on the belt used to strangle Stites and dozens of other pieces of evidence in 2014.
Justice Clarence Thomas filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Samuel Alito also filed a dissent, which was joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch.
“Reed’s action should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,” Thomas wrote. “Federal district courts lack appellate jurisdiction to review state-court judgments, and Reed’s action presents no original Article III case or controversy between him and the district attorney.”
Parker Rider-Longmaid, who argued on Reed’s behalf, said the ruling is “a critical step toward the ultimate goal of getting DNA testing in Rodney Reed’s case.”
“We are grateful that the Court has kept the courthouse doors open to Mr. Reed, a Black man who has spent 24 years on death row for the murder of a white woman with whom he was having an affair, a crime he has steadfastly maintained he did not commit,” Rider-Longmaid said. “As Mr. Reed’s briefs explain, extensive evidence developed in postconviction proceedings both points to Mr. Reed’s innocence and implicates the victim’s fiancé.”
Seems like a reasonable ruling to me.
But I’m confused about 2 decades on death row vs a 2 year limitation. Did state due process take 18 years before the final appeal was denied?
I’m also thinking the cost of a DNA test vs a Federal appeal is miniscule. What were the state court’s rationale in denying it?
Argument over statute of limitations.
I think at the time the laws were originally passed, the cost of DNA testing was very expensive and prohibitively slow.
Nowadays it can be done fairly quickly and cheaply..............
“… What were the state court’s rationale in denying it?…”
Their egos could be badly bruised if he proved to be innocent.
I don’t know, but why should there be any limitations at all on exculpatory evidence?..................
I trust Justice Thomas.
Their egos could be badly bruised if he proved to be innocent.
~~~
Sadly, that’s usually true. Human nature.
Prosecutors often buy fully in on the guilt of those they are prosecuting, but even when they (privately) don’t, they still look at it like a competition, or a win/lose situation, and they don’t like to lose.
If DNA and familial DNA can be used to solve decades old cold-cases, then there definitely should be a statue of limitations on proving that someone was wrongly prosecuted.
Why would we NOT want to do DNA testing? Just because of a procedural issue we’ll let the state kill a person? See how the gov’t can be abused to do immoral things we need to make sure we are 100% certain we have the right person before the state ends their life.
What is anyone’s rationale in denying this?
There should be no statue of limitation up to the time the crap is pumped into his veins.
More of the sort of idiocy courts engage in. It's stuff like this that makes me regard the institution as bungling and incompetent, when it is not outright being corrupt.
When you are involved in wrecking a man's life by sending him to prison or even killing him, you have to believe he is guilty, or else you are a monster.
Most people don't want to see themselves as a monster, so they will force doubts out of their mind.
why denied DNA testing? the case is 20 years old. the victims dna could be flawed, have you read the court case?
when it comes to the death penalty, the fact that DNA testing isnt mandatory is a surprise to me... but 20 years later, where is the DNA gonna come from??
coulda, woulda, shoulda....
You don’t take a mans life without exhausting every avenue.
Anyone who denies this has an agenda.
They must have preserved the evidence............
IE: your statement is too far reaching.
The man was a liar, a coke user and continued to lie until he was in court.
I've read a synopsis of the case, It was not a cut and dried case. very convoluted. But I wasn't there on the jury, and he has already failed several appeals.
The courts tend to be "process" Nazis. They are often more concerned that you did their little kabuki dance of legal motions and maneuvers than what the truth actually is.
I am reminded of that scene from "Little Big Man" in which General Custer said to the "mule skinner" "Your miserable life is not worth the reversal of a Custer decision."
That is exactly how I see the courts in many cases. They simply care more about their process than they do about a valid result.
There should be no statue of limitation up to the time the crap is pumped into his veins.
Yup.
IIRC she was married to a cop at the time of her murder, and he was allegedly abusive toward her.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.