Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Civil Liberties
Related: About this forumCourt revives DNA evidence case of Texas man on death-row
Thomas: we can't let people revise things just because they feel like it.
OPINION ANALYSIS
Court revives DNA evidence case of Texas man on death-row
By Amy Howe
on Apr 20, 2023 at 8:47 am
The Supreme Court on Wednesday revived the case of a man on death-row in Texas who is seeking DNA testing to provide evidence that he asserts will clear him. By a vote of 6-3, the justices reversed a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit that Rodney Reed had filed his challenge to the Texas law governing DNA testing too late. ... Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the courts six-page opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, and the courts three liberal justices Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented in a solo opinion; Justice Samuel Alito dissented in an opinion joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch.
Reed was sentenced to death for the 1996 rape and murder of Stacey Stites. He has insisted that he was in a secret relationship with Stites and did not kill her. Instead, he suggested, Stites fiancé, a white police officer, had found out about her relationship with Reed, who is Black, and was actually responsible for her death. ... Reed went to state court, seeking to have DNA testing conducted on several items found on or near Stites body and in the truck she often drove. When those efforts were unsuccessful, Reed then went to federal court in Texas, where he argued that the Texas law governing post-conviction DNA testing violates his right to due process by requiring him to comply with unconstitutional procedures before he can use the testing.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled that Reed should have filed his lawsuit within two years of the trial courts decision denying his request for DNA testing. On Wednesday, the court reversed that decision. ... Both Reed and Texas agree, Kavanaugh observed, that the statute of limitations for his claim is two years. The question before the Supreme Court is when the clock on that two-year statute of limitations began to run. Normally, Kavanaugh explained, that occurs when a plaintiff has a complete and present cause of action that is, when the plaintiff can actually file a lawsuit and obtain relief.
Reed contends that the states process to consider his request for DNA testing was fundamentally unfair, Kavanaugh wrote. Therefore, Kavanaugh continued, in this case, Texass alleged failure to provide Reed with a fundamentally fair process was complete, and the statute of limitations began to run, only once the state litigation ended and deprived Reed of his asserted liberty interest in DNA testing. That end, Kavanaugh wrote, came when the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied Reeds motion for rehearing on his request for DNA testing, making Reeds federal lawsuit timely.
Such a rule, Kavanaugh reasoned, makes sense, particularly when compared with the consequences of the states proposed rule. If the statute of limitations began to run after the state court denied a request for DNA testing, then the plaintiff would likely file his federal claim even while his state appeals continued, leading to senseless duplication. And allowing the state appeals process to play out could focus or even eliminate the need for a federal lawsuit, Kavanaugh added. ... Thomas argued in dissent that, even if Reed had filed his federal challenge on time, the district court did not have the power to review Reeds claim because his lawsuit boils down to an appeal of the judgment of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals which does not fall within the federal courts jurisdiction.
{snip}
This article was originally published at Howe on the Court.
Posted in Capital cases, Featured, Merits Cases
Cases: Reed v. Goertz
Recommended Citation: Amy Howe, Court revives DNA evidence case of Texas man on death-row, SCOTUSblog (Apr. 20, 2023, 8:47 AM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/04/court-revives-dna-evidence-case-of-texas-man-on-death-row/
Court revives DNA evidence case of Texas man on death-row
By Amy Howe
on Apr 20, 2023 at 8:47 am
The Supreme Court on Wednesday revived the case of a man on death-row in Texas who is seeking DNA testing to provide evidence that he asserts will clear him. By a vote of 6-3, the justices reversed a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit that Rodney Reed had filed his challenge to the Texas law governing DNA testing too late. ... Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the courts six-page opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, and the courts three liberal justices Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented in a solo opinion; Justice Samuel Alito dissented in an opinion joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch.
Reed was sentenced to death for the 1996 rape and murder of Stacey Stites. He has insisted that he was in a secret relationship with Stites and did not kill her. Instead, he suggested, Stites fiancé, a white police officer, had found out about her relationship with Reed, who is Black, and was actually responsible for her death. ... Reed went to state court, seeking to have DNA testing conducted on several items found on or near Stites body and in the truck she often drove. When those efforts were unsuccessful, Reed then went to federal court in Texas, where he argued that the Texas law governing post-conviction DNA testing violates his right to due process by requiring him to comply with unconstitutional procedures before he can use the testing.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled that Reed should have filed his lawsuit within two years of the trial courts decision denying his request for DNA testing. On Wednesday, the court reversed that decision. ... Both Reed and Texas agree, Kavanaugh observed, that the statute of limitations for his claim is two years. The question before the Supreme Court is when the clock on that two-year statute of limitations began to run. Normally, Kavanaugh explained, that occurs when a plaintiff has a complete and present cause of action that is, when the plaintiff can actually file a lawsuit and obtain relief.
Reed contends that the states process to consider his request for DNA testing was fundamentally unfair, Kavanaugh wrote. Therefore, Kavanaugh continued, in this case, Texass alleged failure to provide Reed with a fundamentally fair process was complete, and the statute of limitations began to run, only once the state litigation ended and deprived Reed of his asserted liberty interest in DNA testing. That end, Kavanaugh wrote, came when the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied Reeds motion for rehearing on his request for DNA testing, making Reeds federal lawsuit timely.
Such a rule, Kavanaugh reasoned, makes sense, particularly when compared with the consequences of the states proposed rule. If the statute of limitations began to run after the state court denied a request for DNA testing, then the plaintiff would likely file his federal claim even while his state appeals continued, leading to senseless duplication. And allowing the state appeals process to play out could focus or even eliminate the need for a federal lawsuit, Kavanaugh added. ... Thomas argued in dissent that, even if Reed had filed his federal challenge on time, the district court did not have the power to review Reeds claim because his lawsuit boils down to an appeal of the judgment of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals which does not fall within the federal courts jurisdiction.
{snip}
This article was originally published at Howe on the Court.
Posted in Capital cases, Featured, Merits Cases
Cases: Reed v. Goertz
Recommended Citation: Amy Howe, Court revives DNA evidence case of Texas man on death-row, SCOTUSblog (Apr. 20, 2023, 8:47 AM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/04/court-revives-dna-evidence-case-of-texas-man-on-death-row/
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
1 replies, 2379 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (1)
ReplyReply to this post
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Court revives DNA evidence case of Texas man on death-row (Original Post)
mahatmakanejeeves
Apr 2023
OP
DFW
(56,734 posts)1. The bloodthirstiness of Thomas and Alito knows no bounds
As long as the one to be killed has already been born, they always find a justification to end that life (pro-life, my ass).
They come up with contorted procedural word salad and ignore that an innocent man might have been on Death Row for nearly thirty years and is soon be executed like a steak «aged to perfection» about to be grilled (equal justice under law, my ass on that, too).