WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in Gutierrez v. Saenz on Feb. 24, and the outcome of the case could impact the rights of death row inmates seeking DNA testing to prove their innocence.
Ruben Gutierrez, who has been on death row for over two decades, has long argued that DNA evidence could clear his name. He was convicted in 1999 for the murder of 85-year-old Escolastica Harrison in Brownsville, Texas.
According to his death row record, Gutierrez and two other men entered Harrison’s home on Sept. 5, 1998, robbing and murdering her. But, Gutierrez said he was never inside Harrison’s home and did not know anyone would be harmed.
Since 2020, Guiterrez has requested that further evidence found at the crime be tested for DNA. Texas, like many states, imposes procedures that may limit inmates’ access to DNA testing post-conviction. D.C. law allows inmates to request DNA testing to challenge wrongful convictions, and Virginia recently updated its laws to expand access to post-conviction DNA testing.
Now with the Supreme Court involved, the outcome of Gutierrez v. Saenz could set a precedent on how states handle DNA testing in death penalty cases.
Gutierrez’s lawyer, Shawn Nolan, said Texas law is “unfair” because it blocks inmates from testing DNA evidence unless they can prove it would completely change their conviction — not just their sentence.
“The Fifth Circuit’s decision is both wrong and pernicious,” Nolan said in a statement. “The Fifth Circuit has ignored this court’s clear precedent and gone out of its way to create an impractical and burdensome standing test.”
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has repeatedly denied Gutierrez’s request, saying that even if DNA testing proved he wasn’t inside the home, he would still be eligible for the death penalty under Texas’ “law of parties.”
This law allows someone to be sentenced to death if they participated in a crime that led to a murder, even if they didn’t do the killing themselves. D.C. has similar laws that hold people responsible for crimes they help plan or participate in, which might also cause difficulties obtaining DNA testing.
The Supreme Court ruling will only decide whether inmates should have the constitutional right to access DNA testing to challenge their convictions — especially when the evidence could prove their innocence.
A decision can be expected by the end of the summer. Updates about the case can be found here.
Jordan Jarrett is a reporter for HUNewsService.com.
