ARGUMENT ANALYSIS
on Feb 24, 2025
at 4:48 pm
The courtroom’s February session started on Monday with oral arguments in
Gutierrez v. Saenz. (Katie Barlow)
The Supreme Courtroom on Monday was divided over whether or not a Texas man on demise row has a authorized proper to sue, often known as standing, to convey federal civil rights claims difficult the constitutionality of the Texas legal guidelines governing DNA testing. Ruben Gutierrez is making an attempt to acquire DNA testing of proof that he says would clear him, nevertheless it was unclear whether or not a majority of the justices agreed that his problem needs to be allowed to maneuver ahead.
Gutierrez was sentenced to demise for the 1998 homicide of 85-year-old Escolastica Harrison in Brownsville, Tex. Gutierrez concedes that he was concerned in a scheme to rob Harrison of $600,000 in money that she saved in her residence, however he insists now that he by no means entered Harrison’s residence and didn’t take part in her homicide.
Gutierrez contends that DNA from a number of items of proof — similar to a hair and nail scrapings from Harrison’s finger and blood stains — would show that he by no means went into Harrison’s residence. And if that DNA proof had been accessible, he argues, the jury wouldn’t have sentenced him to demise.
The Texas Courtroom of Prison Appeals, the state’s highest courtroom for prison instances, in 2011 upheld a state trial courtroom’s denial of Gutierrez’s request for DNA testing. It dominated that the Texas regulation governing requests for DNA testing doesn’t enable testing when the outcomes of the testing would solely have an effect on the sentence {that a} prisoner obtained, moderately than the willpower of guilt or innocence. In different phrases, the Texas regulation would solely enable Gutierrez the DNA testing if he might show that, with that proof, he wouldn’t have been convicted in any respect.
A number of years later, Gutierrez filed a federal civil rights lawsuit towards Luis Saenz, the district legal professional who prosecuted him, and Felix Sauceda, the Brownsville police chief. He challenged the constitutionality of the state’s DNA testing procedures, arguing that they violated his proper to due course of – that’s, truthful therapy by the federal government.
A federal district courtroom in agreed that the Texas scheme governing DNA testing and post-conviction reduction violated his constitutional proper to due course of. Though Texas regulation offers prisoners the proper to file a second request for post-conviction reduction if they will present “clear and convincing” proof that they need to not have been sentenced to demise, Senior U.S. District Decide Hilda Tagle defined, the state’s DNA testing legal guidelines take away a prisoner’s skill to acquire that proof.
A divided panel of the U.S. Courtroom of Appeals for the fifth Circuit threw out that ruling final 12 months. It held that Gutierrez didn’t have standing to convey his lawsuit as a result of the state courtroom of prison appeals had held that even when DNA testing confirmed that Gutierrez by no means went inside Harrison’s home, he nonetheless would have been eligible for the demise penalty due to his position within the theft scheme that led to her homicide. Due to this fact, the courtroom of appeals concluded, prosecutors wouldn’t be prone to order DNA testing, and so the courts can’t present him with any reduction – one of many standards for standing.
The Supreme Courtroom as soon as once more put Gutierrez’s execution on maintain in July 2024, simply 20 minutes earlier than he was scheduled to be executed, to offer the justices time to think about his petition for evaluation of the fifth Circuit’s ruling. The justices agreed in October 2024 to take up his case.
On the Supreme Courtroom on Monday morning, Gutierrez’s lawyer, Anne Fisher, informed the justices that his harm – the denial of proof for DNA testing – could be addressed by way of a ruling in his favor as a result of a ruling “that finds sure procedures in” Texas regulation unconstitutional “eliminates these statutory procedures as a lawful purpose” for state officers to bar the testing.
However, William Cole, a deputy solicitor normal from Texas, countered that the district courtroom’s ruling didn’t present reduction for Gutierrez’s harm. Underneath the Supreme Courtroom’s current resolution permitting Rodney Reed’s problem to the state’s DNA testing regulation to maneuver ahead, the query whether or not a lawsuit will present a treatment hinges on whether or not the ruling within the defendant’s favor will “eradicate the state prosecutor’s justification for denying the testing and thereby … considerably enhance the chance that the prosecutor would hand over the proof.” However right here, Cole stated, the prosecutor has relied on “a number of impartial” causes to reject Gutierrez’s request for entry to the proof.
A few of the courtroom’s conservative justices had been skeptical {that a} ruling in Gutierrez’s favor would truly make a distinction. Justice Neil Gorsuch referred to a ruling by the state courtroom of prison appeals indicating that even when the DNA testing regulation does apply to the demise penalty stage, Gutierrez nonetheless wouldn’t obtain reduction. It was, Gorsuch instructed, successfully “innocent error.”
Fisher pushed again, arguing that the courts ought to take a broader have a look at the proof to find out whether or not Gutierrez ought to nonetheless be topic to the demise penalty.
However Chief Justice John Roberts was skeptical of that rivalry, asking how far more proof could be required to tip the dimensions in Gutierrez’s favor. Is it, he queried, “a tiny thimbleful of further proof? I imply, how is a courtroom presupposed to determine that out?”
Justice Samuel Alito expressed frustration extra usually, noting to Fisher that “this litigation has been occurring for greater than 25 years. I simply am fascinated by realizing whether or not it’s going wherever.”
Justice Brett Kavanaugh was extra sympathetic to Gutierrez. He resisted the suggestion that Gutierrez lacked standing to sue as a result of prosecutors, even within the face of a ruling in Gutierrez’s favor, won’t flip over proof for testing. “I simply don’t see,” Kavanaugh stated, “how we are able to say one thing’s not redressable simply because the prosecutor goes to say I’m not going to adjust to a courtroom order. You realize, if President Nixon stated I’m not going to return flip over the tapes it doesn’t matter what, you wouldn’t say, oh, I assume we don’t have standing to listen to the manager privilege case.”
Justice Elena Kagan was unconvinced that Gutierrez was not entitled to testing as a result of, even when the proof had been examined and had been useful to him, he would nonetheless be eligible for the demise penalty. A state courtroom made “the similar backup argument in” Reed’s case, she noticed, however the Supreme Courtroom “clearly didn’t care about” it – and as a substitute dominated that Reed’s problem was allowed to maneuver ahead.
For her half, Justice Sonia Sotomayor additionally appeared annoyed – however with the state’s failure to order the testing, moderately than the size of the litigation. “It appears odd to be preventing it tooth and nail,” she informed Cole, significantly when there’s extra proof concerning the “potential culpability” of the sufferer’s nephew. “Don’t you need to know,” she requested Cole, “you’re convicting the proper particular person for the proper factor?”
A call within the case is anticipated by summer time.
This text was initially revealed at Howe on the Courtroom.
