AUSTIN, TX – Although the primary use of DNA evidence in capital cases has been to exonerate wrongly convicted individuals, a capital case from Texas has challenged the state’s existing DNA laws simultaneously, setting the precedent for the expanded use of DNA evidence in capital cases, according to a story in “Verdict,” legal analysis and commentary from Justia.
Between 1989 and April 2023, “575 wrongly convicted people have been exonerated based on DNA evidence” proving their innocence, reports the Innocence Project.
Aside from those 575 individuals, “DNA played a key role in the exonerations of 35 people” convicted of capital crimes, said The National Registry of Exonerations.
But, Austin Sarat, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College, writes in Justia’s Verdict that on Oct. 4, the Supreme Court decided to hear a death penalty appeal case petitioned on behalf of death row inmate Ruben Gutierrez on the inclusion of DNA evidence used to prove intent behind murder.
Gutierrez, along with two others, was “convicted of the robbery and murder of 85-year-old Escolastica Harrison,” reports Sarat. Harrison was stabbed to death via a screwdriver.
Gutierrez does not negate their involvement in the crime, however, he argues that “he should not face the death penalty because he did not stab or anticipate that she would be killed in the robbery” and plans to use DNA evidence to prove his claim, reports Reuters.
Sarat writes Gutierrez was sentenced under Texas’ “so called law of parties,” a law that states “those who do not actually kill, intend to kill, or anticipate someone would be killed can be guilty of capital murder” but not everyone who’s guilty is “eligible for the death penalty.”
The state of Texas invalidated Gutierrez’s claim on the grounds that the law only grants post-conviction DNA testing to prove innocence, “not to challenge whether a sentence is appropriate,” reports Reuters, said Sarat in his commentary/analysis.
Texas is not the only state to limit the use of DNA evidence in criminal cases. Sarat writes that, according to the Innocence Project, “though all 50 states have post-conviction DNA laws, many [are] restrictive… that few people” have access to testing post-conviction.
A possible reason for these limitations is due to “fear that expanding the role of DNA would highlight the flaws” in the criminal justice system, and “in death cases, the risk of executing people who do not deserve to die,” maintains the Innocence Project, Sarat writes in Verdict Justia.
According to Gutierrez’s appeal, DNA evidence would establish that “he did not actually kill, intend to kill, or anticipate someone would be killed,” the Sarat piece states.
Despite his claims, the state of Texas said “even if his request for post-conviction DNA testing were granted, he would not be entitled a reconsideration of his sentence.”
