By Maia Surendra and Elizabeth Garabedian
BASTROP, TX – The third murder appeal hearing for Rodney Reed that began Monday in Bastrop County, TX yielded testimony that questioned the time of the murder, and whether the original murder case had sufficient DNA evidence.
Reed was convicted of the rape and murder of Stacey Stites in 1998, and has been on death row since then, more than 20 years. After being granted a stay of execution in 2019, Reed is now seeking to overturn his conviction starting with this week’s evidentiary hearing.
The hearing will last up to five days, and new evidence will be presented by defense attorney Andrew MacRae, who believes that the evidence the state presented in the original case against Reed is false. He is presenting new evidence that could disprove the original claims of the prosecution.
For instance, MacRae argues that today’s DNA testing would prove Reed’s innocence, but the state has continually blocked re-testing of DNA. Specifically, MacRae argues the belt used to strangle the victim could be re-tested, and doing so would show Reed did not commit 
the crime.
“It was a motion for discovery for them (the prosecution) to turn over any and all evidence that they had and for them to give us the belt so it could be tested and have further testing and stuff, and all that stuff was denied,” Rodrick Reed said, as reported by the Austin American-Statesman
Additionally, MacRae argues the explanation for Reed’s DNA being found on the victim’s body is because they were having an affair, not because of an assault. This was supported by a former Bastrop deputy, a friend of the victim’s fiancé Jimmy Fennell, who alleged that Fennell admitted to having knowledge of his wife’s affair.
MacRae says that the state has continuously hid this information, however the prosecution argued that there was no evidence of an affair.
Despite the prosecuting attorney admitting they have heard “different stories” from the defense, MacRae said the victim’s relationship with her fiancé at the time of her murder was controlling and “threatening.”
During the hearing, Ruby Volek testified that she met Fennell and heard him threaten Stacey, saying, “if I ever catch you messing around on me, I will kill you and nobody will know I did it.”
Dr. Andrew Baker, a forensic pathologist and medical examiner was called by the defense to testify to the integrity of the evidence presented at Reed’s original trial.
Dr. Baker stated that he was unsure of the reported time of death and believed that the original testimony was false, suggesting that certain injuries sustained by the victim were “mistakenly” diagnosed. Baker added Stite’s body could have been moved after her murder and the 3 a.m. to 5 a.m. time frame for her death was too narrow.
In response to the new evidence and witness testimony presented, the prosecution repeatedly claimed that Reed’s story and the defense’s strategy has continued to change in order to get him off death row.
“This is not their first story, this is not their second story, this is not their third story. This is their fourth story,” prosecuting attorney Lisa Tanner said.
The hearing will continue this week, but Rodrick Reed spoke to his brother Rodney who said that he is feeling “hopeful,” and stated that “corruption” is the only thing that stands in his way.
The rape and murder of Stites was hardly Reed’s first or last foray against women.
First was Connie York, a nineteen-year-old who had come home late one evening after swimming with friends. 57.RR.34–35. York was grabbed from behind and told “don’t scream or I’ll hurt you.” 57.RR.35–36. When York did not listen, she was 8 repeatedly struck, dragged to her bedroom, and raped multiple times. 57.RR.37–42. Reed was interviewed, and, while he admitted that he knew York from high school, he denied raping her. 57.RR.123–24. When confronted with a search warrant for biological samples, Reed had an about-face, “Yeah, I had sex with her, she wanted it.” 57.RR.138. The case went to trial four years later, 57.RR.30, 60, and Reed was acquitted, 57.RR.61.
Next was A.W., a twelve-year-old girl, who was home alone, having fallen asleep on a couch after watching TV. 58.RR.36–42. A.W. awoke when someone began pushing her face into the couch and had blindfolded and gagged her. 58.RR.42–43. She was repeatedly hit in the head, called vulgar names, and orally, vaginally, and anally raped. 58.RR.43–49. The foreign DNA from A.W.’s rape kit was compared to Reed; Reed was not excluded and only one in 5.5 billion people would have the same foreign DNA profile from A.W.’s rape kit. 58.RR.51, 92; 61.RR.26.
Then came Lucy Eipper, who Reed had met in high school, and whom Reed began to date after her graduation. 59.RR.10–12. Eipper had two children with Reed. 59.RR.13–14, 19–20 Throughout their relationship, Reed physically abused Eipper, including while she was pregnant, and raped her “all the time,” including one time in front of their two children. 59.RR.14–17, 21, 25–32.
Afterwards, Reed began dating Caroline Rivas, an intellectually disabled woman. 60.RR.39–41. Rivas’s caseworker noticed bruises on Rivas’s body and, when asked about them, Rivas admitted that Reed would hurt her if she would not have sex with him. 60.RR.41, 61. 9 Later, Rivas’s caseworker noticed that Rivas was walking oddly and sat down gingerly. 60.RR.43. Rivas admitted that Reed had, the prior evening, hit her, called her vulgar names, and anally raped her. 60.RR.44, 63–65. The samples from Rivas’s rape kit provided the link to Stites’s murder. 60.RR.89–90.
Shortly thereafter, and about six months before Stites’s murder, Reed raped Vivian Harbottle underneath a train trestle as she was walking home. 59.RR.87–92. When she pleaded for her life for the sake of her children, Reed laughed at her. 59.RR.94. The foreign DNA from Harbottle’s rape kit was compared to Reed; he could not be excluded, and only one person in 5.5 billion would be expected to have the same foreign DNA profile. 59.RR.95, 113–14; 61.RR.26.
Finally, and about six months after Stites’s murder, Reed convinced nineteen-year-old Linda Schlueter to give him a ride home at about 3:30 a.m. 61.RR.10, 37–47. Reed led her to a remote area and then attacked her. 61.RR.47–58. After a prolonged struggle, Schlueter asked Reed what he wanted and Reed responded, “I want a blow job.” 61.RR.60. When Schlueter told Reed that “you will have to kill me before you get anything,” Reed stated “I guess I’ll have to kill you then.” 61.RR.60. Before Schlueter could be raped, a car drove by and Reed fled. 61.RR.62–64.
No. 17-1093 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States, RODNEY REED, Petitioner, vs. THE STATE OF TEXAS Respondent.On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, RESPONDENT’S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION