Supreme Court Rejects Rodney Reed Appeal for DNA Testing in Texas Death‑Penalty Case
The Supreme Court declined to hear death-row inmate Rodney Reed’s appeal to permit DNA testing of the webbed belt linked to the 1996 killing, leaving in place the 5th Circuit ruling for the second time in less than three years; three liberal justices dissented, with Justice Sotomayor calling prosecutors’ refusal to allow testing “inexplicable” and warning Texas may execute Reed without knowing whose DNA is on the belt. Reed’s lawyers say they offered to pay for testing but prosecutors refused, and Texas’s top criminal court has interpreted the state DNA‑testing law to exclude items deemed “contaminated” even though the state controlled the belt’s handling; Reed has long maintained that Stacey Stites’ fiancé, former officer Jimmy Fennell (who denies the allegation and has a prior sexual‑assault conviction), was the real killer.
📌 Key Facts
- The Supreme Court rejected Rodney Reed’s appeal seeking DNA testing of a webbed belt in his Texas death‑penalty case, leaving in place a 5th Circuit ruling.
- This is the second time in less than three years the Supreme Court has left the 5th Circuit’s adverse ruling against Reed intact.
- Reed’s defense offered to pay for DNA testing of the belt, but Texas prosecutors have refused to allow the testing and continue to refuse.
- Texas’s top criminal court has interpreted the state DNA‑testing law to exclude items it deems “contaminated,” and that interpretation was used to deny testing of the belt even though the state controlled the belt’s handling and often relies on such evidence at trial.
- Three liberal justices dissented from the Court’s action; Justice Sonia Sotomayor called the refusal to permit testing “inexplicable” and warned Texas will likely execute Reed without knowing whether Reed’s or the victim’s fiancé’s DNA is on the belt (the alleged murder weapon).
- Reed has long maintained that Stacey Stites’ fiancé, former police officer Jimmy Fennell, was the real killer; Fennell has denied the allegation and previously served time for sexual assault.
📊 Relevant Data
Innocent Black Americans are about seven times more likely than innocent White Americans to be wrongly convicted of murder, with the disparity even greater when the murder victim is White.
Race and Wrongful Convictions in the United States, 2022 — National Registry of Exonerations
Approximately one-third of wrongful convictions uncovered by DNA analysis nationwide involve White witnesses misidentifying Black individuals.
Cross-Racial Misidentification — Seattle University Law Review
From 1989 to 2020, there were 130 DNA exonerations in the United States for individuals wrongfully convicted of murder.
DNA Exonerations in the United States (1989 – 2020) — Innocence Project
📰 Source Timeline (3)
Follow how coverage of this story developed over time
- Confirms that the Supreme Court has now left in place the 5th Circuit’s ruling against Rodney Reed 'for the second time in less than three years.'
- Reiterates that three liberal justices dissented and quotes Sotomayor describing prosecutors’ refusal to allow belt testing as 'inexplicable.'
- Spells out that Texas’s top criminal court has interpreted the state DNA-testing law to exclude items it deems 'contaminated,' even though the state itself controlled the belt’s handling.
- Restates that Reed’s defense team offered to pay for the DNA testing, and that prosecutors continue to refuse.
- Notes Reed’s long-running claim that Stacey Stites’ fiancé, former police officer Jimmy Fennell, was the real killer, and that Fennell has denied it and previously served time for sexual assault.
- CBS piece reiterates that this is the second time in less than three years the Supreme Court has left in place an adverse 5th Circuit ruling against Reed.
- Clarifies that Texas prosecutors have refused DNA testing of the webbed belt even though Reed’s defense offered to pay for it.
- Quotes in more detail Justice Sotomayor’s dissent calling the refusal to permit testing 'inexplicable' and warning that Texas will likely execute Reed without knowing whether Reed’s or Fennell’s DNA is on the murder weapon.
- Restates that Texas’s top criminal court has interpreted the state DNA-testing law not to cover potentially 'contaminated' items, even though the state often relies on such evidence at trial and controlled the belt’s handling.