Reed v. Goertz
Headline: Denial leaves death-row prisoner blocked from DNA testing of the murder belt, allowing execution to proceed and keeping Texas’s evidence-handling ban in place.
Holding: The Court refused to review and left in place lower-court rulings that prevent a death-row prisoner from getting DNA testing of the murder weapon, allowing the state's refusal to stand while appeals proceed.
- Permits execution to proceed without DNA testing of the murder weapon.
- Leaves in place Texas rule blocking testing when evidence was handled by others.
- Makes it harder for prisoners to get potentially exonerating DNA results.
Summary
Background
Rodney Reed is a death-row prisoner who was convicted in 1998 for the murder of Stacey Lee Stites. He has long argued he is innocent and has presented evidence suggesting a local police officer might be the killer. Reed asked the Bastrop County District Attorney in 2014 to allow DNA testing of the belt used to strangle Stites. The DA refused. Texas courts then denied Reed’s request under a state rule that bars testing when evidence was allegedly contaminated or handled without proper gloves, and the state high court relied on that rule.
Reasoning
Reed sued in federal court saying the state rule violates basic fairness because modern DNA methods can still produce reliable results even when evidence has been handled. He also argued the State is responsible for storing evidence and that prisoners face a tougher test than prosecutors. The federal appeals court rejected the fairness and burden arguments but did not fully address Reed’s core claim that the noncontamination rule is arbitrary given current DNA science. The Supreme Court declined to review the case, leaving the lower-court rulings in place.
Real world impact
Because the Court refused review, Reed may be executed without anyone ever knowing whether DNA from him or from another suspect is on the belt. The decision leaves in place a state practice that can block postconviction DNA testing when evidence is found to have been handled, and it makes it harder for other prisoners to obtain potentially exculpatory DNA results. The denial is not a final decision on whether the rule is constitutional.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, dissented from the refusal to review and argued the case should be sent back so courts can consider whether the rule arbitrarily denies reliable DNA testing that could prove innocence.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?