Ruben Gutierrez, a Texas death row inmate, argues that new DNA evidence can prove he did not murder 85-year-old Escolastica Harrison over two decades ago. Texas prosecutors claim the DNA testing is irrelevant to his case. The Supreme Court heard arguments regarding Gutierrez’s request for testing, which could impact his death sentence under Texas law, which holds participants in a crime responsible even if they did not commit the murder. Justice Sotomayor challenged the prosecution’s stance, while Justice Kavanaugh seemed open to Gutierrez’s arguments. His execution has been halted multiple times amidst ongoing legal disputes.
Ruben Gutierrez, an inmate on death row in Texas, asserts that newly found DNA evidence indicates he was not responsible for the stabbing death of an 85-year-old woman in her mobile home over 20 years ago.
Prosecutors in Texas contend that the results of the DNA testing, regardless of what they might show, will have no impact on his conviction. On Monday, the Supreme Court deliberated on whether Mr. Gutierrez should be permitted to pursue this testing, with justices seemingly divided in their opinions.
In a rare move, the Supreme Court halted Mr. Gutierrez’s execution just 20 minutes prior to its scheduled time in July. This marked the second occasion that his execution was stayed due to ongoing legal issues surrounding the case.
Mr. Gutierrez was convicted and sentenced to death in 1999 for the robbery and murder of Escolastica Harrison, aged 85. Prosecutors alleged that he and two accomplices had executed a plan to rob Ms. Harrison by enticing her out of her mobile home to steal cash stored inside. Evidence presented during the trial revealed that Ms. Harrison had been fatally stabbed in her residence.
Mr. Gutierrez maintains that he never entered Ms. Harrison’s home and was unaware of any intention to harm her. For over 12 years, he has sought to have evidence from the crime scene — including a bloodstained shirt and hair and nail samples — tested in accordance with the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, asserting that none of these items would reveal his DNA.
The legal discussion before the court did not challenge his innocence; Mr. Gutierrez does not deny his involvement in the events that led to her death, but rather disputes whether he deserves to be sentenced to death.
According to Texas’s “law of parties,” individuals who do not physically kill, intend to kill, or foresee that another person might be killed during a crime can still be convicted of capital murder. Consequently, Mr. Gutierrez could be found guilty based solely on his participation in the robbery, regardless of whether he was directly involved in the homicide.
However, not every conviction under this legal framework qualifies for a death sentence. Mr. Gutierrez argues that the DNA testing would strengthen his claim of not having killed Ms. Harrison, thereby warranting a reconsideration of the death penalty.
This case closely mirrors that of Rodney Reed, another inmate on Texas’s death row who argued that DNA testing might demonstrate his innocence. His plight garnered attention from lawmakers and celebrities like Kim Kardashian and Rihanna. In a 6-to-3 ruling in 2023, the justices, led by Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, ruled in favor of Mr. Reed, allowing the DNA testing to proceed.
On Monday, William F. Cole, Texas’s deputy solicitor general, contended that Mr. Gutierrez’s request for DNA testing should be dismissed, arguing that he could not demonstrate any harm from the lack of testing and therefore lacked the legal standing necessary to pursue this action. The concept of standing demands that a party prove a direct injury to contest a legal matter.
This reasoning drew criticism from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a liberal member of the court and former prosecutor.
“If you are confident in your conviction and your rationale, why not conduct the testing?” Justice Sotomayor queried Mr. Cole.
Anne E. Fisher, an assistant federal defender representing Mr. Gutierrez, clarified that the inmate must establish two points to evade the death penalty: that he was not present in the home and that he was not a “major participant” in the crime.
Justice Kavanaugh appeared to align with Mr. Gutierrez’s legal team, suggesting that DNA testing could undermine the prosecution’s assertion of him as the killer of Ms. Harrison.
“If Gutierrez cannot be found anywhere, I think that does not reverse the state’s theory,” Justice Kavanaugh noted. “But it certainly raises questions about their understanding of the events in the trailer.”
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. expressed doubts that DNA testing could alter the verdict.
“DNA cannot prove he wasn’t present,” Justice Alito stated.
Earlier in the year, a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed Mr. Gutierrez’s argument. Following that, he requested the Supreme Court’s intervention. His attorneys described the ruling from the appellate court as “incorrect and harmful.”
Since his sentencing in 1999, Mr. Gutierrez has been awaiting execution. Monday marked the second occasion where the justices grappled with legal complexities in his case. In 2020, they intervened to halt his execution roughly one hour prior after Mr. Gutierrez’s lawyers argued his religious rights were infringed when he was denied a Christian chaplain’s presence during the execution.