The Supreme Courtroom appeared swayed by a Texas dying row inmate’s argument he has the authorized proper to sue over the state’s legal guidelines governing DNA testing, as he seeks to acquire testing on proof he claims would stop his execution.
Ruben Gutierrez was convicted of capital homicide and different expenses tied to the 1998 theft and killing of 85-year-old Escolastica Harrison. Prosecutors stated Gutierrez and two others plotted to lure Harrison out of her cellular dwelling to steal money, however as a substitute, two males entered the house and killed her.
For greater than a decade, the dying row inmate has sought DNA testing to show that he’s ineligible for capital punishment as a result of he wasn’t a significant participant within the crime, asserting that he was not one of many two males to enter the house although he did take part within the theft.
Gutierrez contends that Texas’ DNA testing statute violates due course of by solely permitting testing the place favorable outcomes would bolster a defendants’ innocence, as a substitute of their ineligibility for the dying penalty. He sued a Texas prosecutor and native police chief, given their custody of the proof.
However a federal appeals courtroom discovered that he doesn’t have standing to problem the legal guidelines’ constitutionality as a result of he did not show a prosecutor would doubtless grant entry to the DNA proof if a courtroom dominated in his favor. Gutierrez’s legal professionals declare the U.S. Courtroom of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit created its “own novel test” that runs afoul of Supreme Courtroom precedent.
Anne Elizabeth Fisher, a lawyer for Gutierrez, argued earlier than the justices Monday that Gutierrez’s problem is like that of Texas dying row inmate Rodney Reed, who equally sought go away to problem Texas’ postconviction DNA testing statute. The Supreme Courtroom dominated 6-3 in Reed’s favor in 2023, with conservative Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett becoming a member of the liberal justices.
In that case, the prosecutor whom Reed sued argued {that a} declaratory judgment wouldn’t make it extra doubtless that the state would flip over the DNA proof — an argument the excessive courtroom rejected, Fisher stated.
“If you apply Reed because it’s written, we match precisely beneath that class,” Fisher stated.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh appeared sympathetic to Gutierrez’s place, suggesting that the decrease courtroom’s ruling can’t be left uncorrected simply because prosecutors would possibly decline to show over proof.
“You know, if President Nixon said, ‘I’m not going to turn over the tapes, no matter what,’ you wouldn’t say, ‘Oh, I guess we don’t have standing to hear the executive privilege case,’” Kavanaugh stated.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson additionally appeared to recommend that the decrease courtroom overreached.
“You don’t have to prove that nothing can come up that will defeat your ability to win the claim. And that’s what they seem to be saying,” Jackson stated.
“That’s exactly what they’re saying, and that’s what we’re fighting against,” Fisher stated.
William Francis Cole, a lawyer for Luis Saenz, the district legal professional in Cameron County, Texas, argued that the case isn’t about Saenz’s discretion, however as a substitute whether or not he will be “compelled to hand over the evidence.”
The state initially didn’t oppose Gutierrez’s request for DNA testing, however later, modified its place. Justice Sonia Sotomayor scrutinized the flip-flop, suggesting that it was “odd” the state wouldn’t wish to verify if one other defendant was extra culpable than as soon as thought.
“At one point you decided that you wouldn’t object to doing it, but now you’re fighting a tooth and nail,” Sotomayor stated.
“If you are sure of your conviction in your theory, why not do the testing?” she added.
Jackson additionally expressed concern that, whereas the case appears “very small and narrow,” a call within the prosecutor’s favor may have “major implications” for tips on how to decide standing.
“In a discretionary world, if that’s your concept of injury, you would never have discretion,” she stated. “You’d never have redressability because the prosecutor could always say… ‘Well, I wouldn’t give it to you anyway,’ no matter what,” she stated.
Cole emphasised that, if Saenz had been ordered to show over the proof, he would.
A call is anticipated by this summer time.
