Supreme Court Agrees to Hear a Case That Could Expand the Use of DNA Evidence in Capital Cases

The supply of DNA testing has had a profound affect on the American felony justice system and on the best way Individuals take into consideration that system. Again and again, DNA has proven that our felony justice system is something however foolproof.

The Innocence Venture stories that between the primary DNA exoneration in 1989 and April 2023, “575 wrongly convicted folks have been exonerated primarily based on DNA checks that demonstrated their innocence.” Throughout that very same time interval, DNA performed a key position within the exonerations of 35 individuals who had been convicted of a capital crime. That’s a part of the rationale why a majority of Individuals now imagine that the demise penalty is utilized unfairly.

However DNA usually has been utilized in capital instances solely to point out whether or not somebody was falsely convicted. On Friday, the Supreme Court docket agreed to listen to a case that might change that and make DNA an much more highly effective software within the quest to attain justice in capital instances.

That case comes from Texas. It entails Ruben Gutierrez who, together with two others, was convicted of the theft and homicide of 85-year-old Escolastica Harrison. Harrison was stabbed to demise with a screwdriver.

Gutierrez doesn’t dispute his involvement within the crime. As a substitute, he argues that “he shouldn’t face the demise penalty as a result of he didn’t stab Harrison or anticipate that she can be killed within the theft.” He desires to make use of DNA proof for that objective.

The state of Texas says he shouldn’t be allowed to take action as a result of the regulation solely permits post-conviction DNA testing to point out innocence, to not problem whether or not a sentence is acceptable.

When it hears Gutierrez’s case, the Supreme Court docket ought to be sure that he has an opportunity to problem that restriction and argue for an expanded use of DNA in capital instances.

The Gutierrez case may have nationwide implications since Texas shouldn’t be alone in limiting using DNA. Because the Innocence Venture states, “Although all 50 states have post-conviction DNA legal guidelines, many of those legal guidelines are so restrictive or restricted in scope that few folks can truly entry DNA testing after being convicted.”

It presents two examples. “In Alabama, a convicted individual can solely get DNA testing of their case if they’ve been charged with a capital offense, whereas in Kentucky, individuals who plead responsible are barred from accessing DNA testing, even when they falsely confessed or had been coerced.”

Different examples embody legal guidelines in Arkansas, Delaware, and New Hampshire requiring “{that a} prisoner show their innocence or present DNA testing will implicate another person within the crime earlier than DNA testing is allowed, requiring petitioners to basically resolve the crime they’re accused of.”

States could impose such restrictions as a result of they worry that increasing the position of DNA would spotlight the issues of their felony justice techniques and, in demise instances, the danger of executing individuals who don’t should die.

Along with the statutory restrictions that they impose, the Dying Penalty Info Middle stories that states routinely “oppose DNA testing in demise penalty appeals.” Throughout the nation, prosecutors, the report continues, “are aggressively opposing post-conviction DNA testing and state courts have declined to permit it.”

The federal authorities additionally limits using DNA in numerous methods.

Underneath federal regulation, anybody searching for to make DNA a part of a post-conviction continuing should assert “ below penalty of perjury, that the applicant is definitely harmless of…the Federal offense for which the applicant is sentenced to imprisonment or demise; or one other Federal or State offense, if proof of such offense was admitted throughout a Federal sentencing listening to and exoneration of such offense would entitle the applicant to a lowered sentence or new sentencing listening to.”

In his attraction to the Supreme Court docket, Gutierrez contends that restrictions resembling these mentioned above are stopping him from acquiring “DNA testing…of things recovered from the crime scene, together with a blood-stained shirt belonging to Harrison’s nephew and housemate, nail scrapings from Harrison, a unfastened hair wrapped round one in every of her fingers, and numerous blood samples from inside the cell dwelling.”

He was sentenced to demise below Texas’s so-called regulation of events. That regulation says that “those that don’t truly kill, intend to kill, or anticipate somebody can be killed will be responsible of capital homicide….[but] not all who’re responsible below the regulation of events are eligible for the demise penalty.” He contends that Texas “doesn’t enable a person to be put to demise for merely being a celebration to a homicide.”

Gutierrez claims that “the organic proof collected on the crime scene…[would] set up that he didn’t truly kill, intend to kill, or anticipate somebody can be killed.” He’s asking the Supreme Court docket to reverse a Fifth Circuit Court docket of Appeals determination discovering that he didn’t have the proper to sue Texas.

That court docket held that he lacked standing as a result of his request for post-conviction DNA testing solely pertained to his demise sentence, not whether or not he was truly harmless.

Gutierrez argues that the Fifth Circuit ignored relevant precedent and that he ought to have the proper to sue as a result of Texas’s limitation on DNA use in post-conviction proceedings violates the constitutional assure of due strategy of regulation. Since he’s allowed below Texas regulation to problem his demise sentence in a post-conviction continuing, Gutierrez says he ought to be capable to use DNA as proof in such a continuing.

As well as, Gutierrez advised the Supreme Court docket that since he was tried, Texas has modified its DNA testing protocol “to require necessary testing of all gadgets with organic materials the place the State pursues the demise penalty….” Which means “If this crime had been dedicated right now, DNA testing of this stuff would have already occurred, and Gutierrez by no means would have been sentenced to demise.”

Texas responded to Gutierrez’s request for a writ of certiorari by saying that even when his request for post-conviction DNA testing had been granted, he wouldn’t be entitled a reconsideration of his sentence. It cited a choice of the state Court docket of Felony Appeals that even when he had not been current when Escolastica Harrison was murdered, Gutierrez may nonetheless be sentenced to demise below the Texas regulation of events.

The state characterised Gutierrez’s request for a keep of execution as being primarily based “on nothing greater than…[an] overwrought interpretation” of the Fifth Circuit’s determination. It urged the Court docket to seek out that his case “presents nothing worthy of this Court docket’s consideration.”

The Supreme Court docket was proper to disagree.

Now it is going to have an opportunity to determine whether or not Gutierrez has a proper to sue Texas and present why its statutory limitation on using DNA is unconstitutional. On the finish of the day, these limitations appear to be premised on little greater than what demise penalty opponents Stephan Vibrant and James Kwak name “a worry of an excessive amount of justice.”

In demise instances there can by no means be an excessive amount of justice.