Rodney Reed has been sitting on death row at Texas鈥� infamous Polunsky Unit for more than two decades, convicted of abducting, raping and murdering 19-year-old Stacey Stites as she drove to her early morning shift at HEB.
Reed has maintained his innocence all that time, and his lawyers have argued repeatedly that there might be a way to prove it: testing crime scene evidence that was never checked for DNA, including the murder weapon itself, a woven leather belt used to strangle Stites.
Reed鈥檚 best chance at getting that evidence tested now rests with the U.S. Supreme Court, which on Tuesday heard oral arguments centering on one procedural question: Did Reed wait too long to ask a federal court to order the tests?
Ironically, the state鈥檚 case against Reed partly relied on DNA evidence. When Reed鈥檚 sperm was found inside Stites鈥� body after her death, Reed became the prime suspect in her murder. Reed contends that in 1996, he and Stites were engaged in a consensual affair and had sex in the hours before her death. Reed is Black and Stites was white; his lawyers argue that Stites鈥� fianc茅, Jimmy Fennell, also white, was violent and racist and that he likely murdered his fianc茅 after discovering the affair. Reed hopes to bolster this theory through DNA evidence found on the murder weapon.
The case has received , including calls for his freedom by Texas lawmakers and celebrities like Kim Kardashian, who pointed to Reed鈥檚 compelling claims of innocence.
Reed鈥檚 execution was set for November 2019 but was and sent back to a lower court for review of new claims, including that he is innocent of the crimes. In 2021, after an evidentiary hearing, a district judge ruled the new evidence was .
The Court of Criminal Appeals has received the recommendation but has not yet ruled on the outcome of Reed鈥檚 state appeals.
The state has argued that the crime scene items should not be tested because they were improperly stored and may be contaminated. In 2014, a district court agreed, and in 2017, the Criminal Court of Appeals, Texas鈥檚 highest criminal court, affirmed that decision.
Reed鈥檚 attorneys then brought a federal claim under Section 1983, which allows individuals to sue state actors for violating their rights. In Texas, those claims have a statute of limitations of two years. The state is arguing that the statute of limitations began in 2014 when the district court made its initial decision not to test the DNA.
鈥淣o provision of Texas law requires an applicant to appeal a denial of DNA testing in state court,鈥� the state argued in its brief to the Supreme Court. 鈥淩eed knew that he was injured when he was denied testing, and he could have pursued a facial challenge in federal court on due-process grounds immediately after that denial.鈥�
The Criminal Court of Appeals upheld the lower court鈥檚 ruling in April 2017. that the clock started on the statute of limitations in October 2017, after the appeals court denied Reed鈥檚 request for a rehearing. Reed filed his 1983 claim in August 2019.
The Fifth Circuit agreed that the statute of limitations in Reed鈥檚 case was tied to the initial ruling, but in a different case, the Eleventh Circuit had ruled that the statute of limitations begins once the options for relief in state court are exhausted.
鈥淎 federal court should not proceed with adjudication before state courts have had their say,鈥� a dozen legal scholars wrote in an filed in support of Reed, warning that forcing plaintiffs to file suit in state and federal courts simultaneously 鈥渋nvites unnecessary intrusions into state processes.鈥�
In Tuesday鈥檚 oral arguments, Texas Solicitor General Judd Stone told the justices that the more time goes by, the harder it is for the state to defend its case, as evidence degrades and witnesses age. 鈥淎dditional delay harms the state鈥檚 ability to be able to redress this if, for example, he鈥檚 entitled to a new trial for one reason or another, which he most emphatically is not,鈥� Stone argued.
In another filed in support of Reed, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund noted that if the Supreme Court limits the amount of time incarcerated people have to bring federal claims regarding untested DNA, the decision 鈥渨ill disproportionately harm Black people and other people of color, who are and must rely on access to DNA evidence to prove their innocence.鈥�
鈥淚n cases like Mr. Reed鈥檚, where racial bias or other arbitrary factors undermine the reliability of a conviction, DNA evidence is a critical means of remedying wrongful convictions,鈥� the brief stated.
Since Reed was convicted, have come forward to corroborate that Reed and Stites were having a relationship and that Stites was scared of Fennell before her death. In 2008, Fennell pled guilty to kidnapping a woman and engaging in 鈥渋mproper sexual conduct鈥� with her while on duty with the Georgetown Police Department. In , the victim told filmmaker Ryan Polomski that he pulled out his gun, put it near her head and raped her.
Fennell was released from prison in 2018 after serving 10 years. According to a sworn affidavit by a member of the Aryan Brotherhood who was incarcerated with Fennell, Fennell told him that because she slept with a Black man.
Reed has also been accused 鈥� but not convicted 鈥� of multiple . He was charged, and acquitted, in one case. In 2021, while testifying in the evidentiary hearing in Reed鈥檚 case, there was any truth to the statements that multiple witnesses had made, including that he was violent toward Stites, that he鈥檇 admitted to the crime while in prison and that Reed and Stites knew each other. 鈥淎s far as I'm concerned,鈥� he said, 鈥渢hey鈥檙e all lying.鈥�
