Supreme Court weighs dispute over when to bar crime-scene DNA testing

The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard arguments in a dispute over how long prison inmates can pursue claims for crime-scene DNA testing.

The case of Texas death-row inmate Rodney Reed focuses on the deadline for filing a federal civil-rights claim, challenging the constitutionality of the Texas law governing DNA testing.

More than a decade ago, the high court ruled prisoners can pursue civil-rights actions for DNA testing, but there are conflicting lower court rulings on when the statute of limitations begins to run on those requests.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, for example, said the clock on claims for testing begins to run at the conclusion of litigation in state court. However, the 5th and 7th Circuits have ruled the statute of limitations for DNA tests starts upon the first denial by a trial court — despite any appeal.

Reed’s lawyers brought the case before the justices and argued it is practical for a statute of limitations for DNA testing to begin after state proceedings become final — including the appeals process.

“Rehearing can change reasoning and results,” said Parker Andrew Rider-Longmaid, a lawyer representing Reed. “The procedures need to be fair to vindicate that [liberty] interest.”

Reed, who is Black, was convicted for the 1998 murder of Stacey Stites, a White woman. His sperm was found in her vagina, but he insists the two had an ongoing relationship.

At the time, Stites was engaged to a police officer who was the last one to see her and failed a polygraph test, according to court papers.

The justices appeared split along ideological lines at times during the oral arguments on Tuesday, questioning whether the argument made by Reed’s legal team would create a simpler rule for courts to follow, or if it would be used by defendants to delay justice.

“Isn’t just the simplest thing to say the person isn’t harmed until the state’s process has come to an end?” Justice Elena Kagan asked.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., though, suggested that would help defendants buy more time.

“You want to have your cake and eat it too,” he told Reed’s lawyer. “My concern with your position is, it is going to put off the time when people can bring claims for access to evidence because the claim is not going to be complete until you have a final decision from the [Criminal Court of Appeals], which helps you because you want to put off the time.”

Meanwhile, Judd Edward Stone II, a lawyer for the state of Texas, said allowing defendants to bring claims at the start of a trial court’s denial of their DNA testing request would help most defendants — instead of waiting for the whole state litigation process to be exhausted.

“States are best served by having defined dates that are not manipulatable by individuals who are seeking to extend the length of their claims by as long as possible,” he said.

The case is Reed v. Goertz. A decision is expected by the end of June.