Supreme Court Declines DNA Testing for Texas Death Row Inmate Rodney Reed

Rodney Reed, a Texas death row inmate, was convicted in 1998 for the 1996 murder of Stacey Stites in Bastrop County, Texas. Reed has consistently maintained his innocence, asserting that Stites's fiancé, Jimmy Fennell, was responsible for her death. Fennell, a former police officer, has denied the allegations but served time for a separate sexual assault. Reed's legal team has sought DNA testing on evidence from the crime scene, particularly a webbed belt believed to be the murder weapon, claiming it could prove his innocence.

The Hill

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Reed's appeal for DNA testing, a decision that could lead to his execution. This follows a previous ruling in 2022, where the Court allowed Reed's case to advance, despite dissent from Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch. The justices' refusal to take up Reed's challenge was based on a Texas law that restricts post-conviction DNA testing, particularly concerning evidence deemed potentially "contaminated." Reed's attorneys argued that this law violates due process rights and that DNA testing could reveal the true perpetrator.

The Hill

Reed's legal team contends that the evidence collected from the crime scene, particularly the belt, likely contains the killer's DNA. They criticized the Bastrop County District Attorney, Bryan Goertz, for allegedly refusing to conduct the DNA tests, despite what they describe as compelling evidence of Reed's innocence. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton defended the state's position, emphasizing that the Supreme Court has historically upheld state legislatures' authority to determine the processes for post-conviction DNA testing. He argued that Reed's claims about contamination and chain of custody misunderstand the legal framework governing DNA evidence.

The Hill

The Supreme Court's decision not to hear Reed's case raises significant concerns regarding the reliability of evidence used in capital cases. Justice Sonia Sotomayor previously noted that Reed's case presented substantial evidence that could cast doubt on the validity of his conviction. This ruling also follows a similar case involving another Texas death row inmate, Ruben Gutierrez, where the Court allowed his legal bid for DNA testing to proceed, highlighting inconsistencies in how such cases are handled.

The Hill

Critics of the Supreme Court's decision argue that it undermines the integrity of the justice system, particularly in capital cases where the stakes are life and death. They emphasize the importance of allowing DNA testing to ensure that wrongful convictions can be rectified. Reed's supporters maintain that the refusal to test the evidence perpetuates a potential miscarriage of justice.

The Hill

• “Once again, Reed must call on this Court to intervene when no other court will give him justice,” — Rodney Reed's Lawyers

The Hill

• “It is likely that the killer’s DNA is on the belt,” — Rodney Reed's Attorneys

The Hill

• “Whatever he wants to call it — contamination, tampering, or comingling — it all bears on the chain of custody for DNA evidence even if it might not be particularly relevant for traditional physical evidence,” — Ken Paxton, Texas Attorney General

The Hill

• “presented a substantial body of evidence that, if true, casts doubt on the veracity and scientific validity of the evidence on which Reed’s conviction rests.” — Justice Sonia Sotomayor

The Hill

The Supreme Court's ruling has significant implications for Reed's future and raises broader questions about the application of justice in capital punishment cases.

The Hill