Rodney Reed denied DNA testing

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Appendix 1:

“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 “

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-1093/45899/20180507150103836_Reed%20BIO%20FINAL.pdf

Appendix 2:

Bastrop records, still shows 4 sexual assault cases, marked as “filed” instead of “disposed”. Search: by defendant: “Reed, Rodney”

http://records.co.bastrop.tx.us/PublicAccess/Search.aspx?ID=100&NodeID=100%2c110%2c200%2c210%2c220%2c230%2c240%2c4100%2c4200%2c4210%2c300%2c310%2c320%2c330%2c340%2c4230%2c4240%2c4250&NodeDesc=All+Courts

Appendix 3:

The Bastrop Advertiser, may 23, 1998:

“5 women testify against Reed

Over three days this week in Bastrop, prosecutors are seeking the death penalty for Rodney Reed for the 1996 rape and strangling of Stacey Stites presented testimony from five women who recounted a string of sexual assaults dating back to 1987. Two of the women identified Reed, 30, as the attacker. Procecutors linked two other assaults in Bastrop to Reed through DNA evidence in testimony presented Friday. “

https://rodneyreedfulltruth.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/prr00014572_march2325-evidentiary-hearing-transcript-volume-6-of-6.pdf (page 17)

Appendix 4:

“Reed also could not be excluded, using Y-STR analysis, from three vaginal swabs, a rectal swab, Stites’s panties, vaginalswab sticks, a vaginal sperm-search slide, and extracts of stains found on Stites’s back brace, pants, and a breast swab. Suppl.CR(DNA).53. This additional testing demonstrated that DNA profiles consistent with Reed’s were in even more locations than what the jury knew about—Stites’s back brace (found in the truck) and her pants (she was wearing).”

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-1093/45899/20180507150103836_Reed%20BIO%20FINAL.pdf

Appendix 5:

“Reed submitted Young's DNA-test results on the beer can (item number 24) found on the road near Stacey's body in his first subsequent state habeas application. Young could not exclude Stacey, Officer Hall, or Investigator Selmala as DNA contributors. But Reed's trial expert, Dr. Johnson, did exclude all three through Polymarker testing.”

https://law.justia.com/cases/texas/court-of-criminal-appeals/2008/17748.html

Appendix 6:

“By proving that biological material was on the items he [Reed] sought to DNA test, he also proved that the items had been tampered with or altered by the ungloved handling at trial and the commingled storage afterwards. Regardless, the denial of DNA testing in this case does not violate due process. Indeed, Justice Alito predicted this very factual scenario almost a decade ago: [M]odern DNA testing is so powerful that it actually increases the risks associated with mishandling evidence. STR tests, for example, are so sensitive that they can detect DNA transferred from person X to a towel (with which he wipes his face), from the towel to Y (who subsequently wipes his face), and from Y’s face to a murder weapon later wielded by Z (who can use STR technology to blame X for the murder). Any test that is sensitive enough to pick up such trace amounts of DNA will be able to detect even the lightest, unintentional mishandling of evidence. . . . . Then, after conviction, with nothing to lose, the defendant could demand DNA testing in the hope that some happy accident—for example, degradation or contamination of the evidence—would provide the basis for seeking postconviction relief. Denying the opportunity for such an attempt to game the criminal justice system should not shock the conscience of the Court."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-1093/45899/20180507150103836_Reed%20BIO%20FINAL.pdf

Appendix 7:

“Over the course of the next eleven months, authorities focused their investigation on people that Stacey knew, and with a $50,000 reward offered by H.E.B., numerous leads and information poured in. For instance, a newspaper-delivery person reported that Stacey's body was not on Bluebonnet Drive when he drove by the site where her body was found at 4:00 a.m. In all, officials interviewed hundreds of people, including former classmates, boyfriends, and coworkers, as well as Stacey's friends and coworkers at H.E.B. “

https://law.justia.com/cases/texas/court-of-criminal-appeals/2008/17748.html

[irishtexan 11522]

35 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Two witnesses.  One a family member and one a friend.  It was laughable.

What is laughable about it? I think he's guilty af, but it seems like two people willing to testify that they knew he was in a clandestine relationship with the victim is pretty fucking significant. 

I think the point of testing the belt is to see what you find. What if you find another convicted murderer's DNA on the belt? Then what? It's unlikely that the test is definitive in proving anything for either side. The point of evidence gathering is to provide a more complete picture. Why not just delay the execution and test the fucking belt?

[Johnny Sack 8397]

14 minutes ago, irishtexan said:

What is laughable about it? I think he's guilty af, but it seems like two people willing to testify that they knew he was in a clandestine relationship with the victim is pretty fucking significant. 

I think the point of testing the belt is to see what you find. What if you find another convicted murderer's DNA on the belt? Then what? It's unlikely that the test is definitive in proving anything for either side. The point of evidence gathering is to provide a more complete picture. Why not just delay the execution and test the fucking belt?

One was a family member who said someone named Stephanie drove up in a gray truck and asked for Rodney.  On cross she could not identify her as Stacy Stites when shown a picture of her.  She said Stephanie 4 times on direct before Reed's attorney had to say, "you mean Stacy, right?"  Stites never drove a gray truck.

The other was a family friend.  She did not say she had any proof of a relationship.  But that she saw Reed asking Stacy a question while Stacy was working.  That's it.  That's the big evidence from the defense witnesses. 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Newspaper accounts of punishment phase testimony:

[ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2678]

5 hours ago, Dr. Beeper said:

The stupidity of Americans, particularly American women who dip their toes in political / societal waters without having the patience to gain an understanding of all the facts, is astounding and concerning. 

Honestly, the media is irresponsible as hell and people don't bother to research for themselves. Specifically, when this case is discussed on air anywhere, they never fail to mention Jimmy Fennell and his later conviction for sexually assaulting someone in his custody. Yet, Reed's more horrific acts closely tracking the M.O. in this case is almost invariably never mentioned. I honestly believe many of those protesting simply don't know.

And for those who do,, if you're going to say one's other bad acts shouldn't amount to guilt in a separate case, fine, but then stating with certainty that Fennell did it is just dumb.

Oh and I firmly believe Fennell is a piece of crap, but he's also a very lucky, convenient red herring for Reed and his supporters.....the evidence does not at all add up for him to have possibly done this. 

[ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2678]

So what's left to do? Test the belt for low-probative touch DNA? 

If Fennell's is on there...well they lived together in a small space, were lovers.

If Reed's is on there, well we were having a consensual affair, so....

If random's are on there, well it's been handled by many throughout the investigation and is certainly contaminated.

Test it anyway, I guess.  And get the johnny-come-lately witnesses who claim Stacy was seeing Rodney under OATH in court to testify, for a credibility determination.

 

[irishtexan 11522]

58 minutes ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

And for those who do,, if you're going to say one's other bad acts shouldn't amount to guilt in a separate case, fine, but then stating with certainty that Fennell did it is just dumb.

Literally no one saying that "one's other bad acts shouldn't amount to guilt in a separate case" in this thread has said they think Fennell did it. 

[irishtexan 11522]

KVUE put together a kinda-long piece outlining most of the evidence against him. 

https://www.kvue.com/article/news/local/rodney-reed-texas-death-row-stacey-stites/269-83d1b2d1-8db2-412f-aae2-afbda9128e48

[TwiceHorn 31510]

5 hours ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

So what's left to do? Test the belt for low-probative touch DNA? 

If Fennell's is on there...well they lived together in a small space, were lovers.

If Reed's is on there, well we were having a consensual affair, so....

If random's are on there, well it's been handled by many throughout the investigation and is certainly contaminated.

Test it anyway, I guess.  And get the johnny-come-lately witnesses who claim Stacy was seeing Rodney under OATH in court to testify, for a credibility determination.

 

This kind of strikes at the heart of it, especially the last sentence.

First you do the DNA test.  Then the lawyers have to make yet another motion for new trial by some vehicle, I'm not sure what at this point.

Then, if a story can be concocted that the DNA changes things enough to grant a new trial, you do the whole thing over again 21 some odd years later.

There is no legal vehicle for determining the credibility of the two witnesses or for considering the impact of the new DNA test other than to re-try the entire case.

 

In some of these cases, the DNA evidence is enough to negate the guilt of the defendant all by itself.  A retrial becomes unnecessary because everyone agrees it would be a waste of time, except occasionally an over-zealous prosecutor.  In this particular case, the DNA seems to resolve nothing.

[JimmyJames 12271]

I often think what ultimately gets lost in these cases and debates is this: should Rodney Reed be in jail, absolutely. Should he be in jail for the rest of his life, most likely so.

Should the state kill him for the crime he was actually convicted for? That’s a more difficult question, given that it’s at least debatable that the state should be killing anyone who is just sitting and rotting in a jail cell. If so, must be without any doubt.

[SquishMitten 10419]

So what's left to do? Test the belt for low-probative touch DNA? 
If Fennell's is on there...well they lived together in a small space, were lovers.
If Reed's is on there, well we were having a consensual affair, so....
If random's are on there, well it's been handled by many throughout the investigation and is certainly contaminated.
Test it anyway, I guess.  And get the johnny-come-lately witnesses who claim Stacy was seeing Rodney under OATH in court to testify, for a credibility determination.
 

See my post from earlier today. There’s a fourth option, which is what they’re going for. And it’s a really strong one for making talking points.

There’s a really high probability that the murderer’s DNA will no longer be detectable on the belt due to all the people who handled it afterwards. The testing still isn’t good enough to put together profiles of every bit of DNA it finds. Basically, it can only put together profiles on the most recent people to have touched it.

If the test was likely to be conclusive (i.e., either his DNA is there, or his DNA was definitely never there) then yeah, test it. But that doesn’t appear to be the case at all. The test cannot exonerate him. The test probably cannot identify him.

[jdhorn92 1552]

8 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

Appendix 1:

 

“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 “

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-1093/45899/20180507150103836_Reed%20BIO%20FINAL.pdf

 

Appendix 2:

 

Bastrop records, still shows 4 sexual assault cases, marked as “filed” instead of “disposed”. Search: by defendant: “Reed, Rodney”

 

http://records.co.bastrop.tx.us/PublicAccess/Search.aspx?ID=100&NodeID=100%2c110%2c200%2c210%2c220%2c230%2c240%2c4100%2c4200%2c4210%2c300%2c310%2c320%2c330%2c340%2c4230%2c4240%2c4250&NodeDesc=All+Courts

 

Appendix 3:

 

The Bastrop Advertiser, may 23, 1998:

 

“5 women testify against Reed

 

Over three days this week in Bastrop, prosecutors are seeking the death penalty for Rodney Reed for the 1996 rape and strangling of Stacey Stites presented testimony from five women who recounted a string of sexual assaults dating back to 1987. Two of the women identified Reed, 30, as the attacker. Procecutors linked two other assaults in Bastrop to Reed through DNA evidence in testimony presented Friday. “

 

https://rodneyreedfulltruth.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/prr00014572_march2325-evidentiary-hearing-transcript-volume-6-of-6.pdf (page 17)

 

Appendix 4:

 

“Reed also could not be excluded, using Y-STR analysis, from three vaginal swabs, a rectal swab, Stites’s panties, vaginalswab sticks, a vaginal sperm-search slide, and extracts of stains found on Stites’s back brace, pants, and a breast swab. Suppl.CR(DNA).53. This additional testing demonstrated that DNA profiles consistent with Reed’s were in even more locations than what the jury knew about—Stites’s back brace (found in the truck) and her pants (she was wearing).”

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-1093/45899/20180507150103836_Reed%20BIO%20FINAL.pdf

 

Appendix 5:

 

“Reed submitted Young's DNA-test results on the beer can (item number 24) found on the road near Stacey's body in his first subsequent state habeas application. Young could not exclude Stacey, Officer Hall, or Investigator Selmala as DNA contributors. But Reed's trial expert, Dr. Johnson, did exclude all three through Polymarker testing.”

 

https://law.justia.com/cases/texas/court-of-criminal-appeals/2008/17748.html

 

Appendix 6:

 

“By proving that biological material was on the items he [Reed] sought to DNA test, he also proved that the items had been tampered with or altered by the ungloved handling at trial and the commingled storage afterwards. Regardless, the denial of DNA testing in this case does not violate due process. Indeed, Justice Alito predicted this very factual scenario almost a decade ago: [M]odern DNA testing is so powerful that it actually increases the risks associated with mishandling evidence. STR tests, for example, are so sensitive that they can detect DNA transferred from person X to a towel (with which he wipes his face), from the towel to Y (who subsequently wipes his face), and from Y’s face to a murder weapon later wielded by Z (who can use STR technology to blame X for the murder). Any test that is sensitive enough to pick up such trace amounts of DNA will be able to detect even the lightest, unintentional mishandling of evidence. . . . . Then, after conviction, with nothing to lose, the defendant could demand DNA testing in the hope that some happy accident—for example, degradation or contamination of the evidence—would provide the basis for seeking postconviction relief. Denying the opportunity for such an attempt to game the criminal justice system should not shock the conscience of the Court."

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-1093/45899/20180507150103836_Reed%20BIO%20FINAL.pdf

 

Appendix 7:

 

“Over the course of the next eleven months, authorities focused their investigation on people that Stacey knew, and with a $50,000 reward offered by H.E.B., numerous leads and information poured in. For instance, a newspaper-delivery person reported that Stacey's body was not on Bluebonnet Drive when he drove by the site where her body was found at 4:00 a.m. In all, officials interviewed hundreds of people, including former classmates, boyfriends, and coworkers, as well as Stacey's friends and coworkers at H.E.B. “

 

https://law.justia.com/cases/texas/court-of-criminal-appeals/2008/17748.html

 

Keep up the good work. This fucker needs to fry 

[RollLeft 5045]

8 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

I often think what ultimately gets lost in these cases and debates is this: should Rodney Reed be in jail, absolutely. Should he be in jail for the rest of his life, most likely so.

Should the state kill him for the crime he was actually convicted for? That’s a more difficult question, given that it’s at least debatable that the state should be killing anyone who is just sitting and rotting in a jail cell. If so, must be without any doubt.

So change the law. 

Among all the states TX has the highest standard, imo.  Right now the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt to three questions whereas most states only have one.

To impose death, the sentencer must determine each of three issues beyond a reasonable doubt. The sentencer must find that the murder was "committed deliberately and with the reasonable expectation that the death . . . would result"; that there is a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society; and, if pertinent, whether the killing was "unreasonable in response to the provocation" by the victim.' 

Most states merely...must be made beyond a reasonable doubt, such as finding "aggravating circumstances outweigh mitigating circumstances"

So in this case when you have other women say he raped them and also say they pleaded for their life as to not to be killed that satisfies continuing threat to society, imo.  

[ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2678]

19 hours ago, irishtexan said:

Literally no one saying that "one's other bad acts shouldn't amount to guilt in a separate case" in this thread has said they think Fennell did it. 

For clarity's sake, I was referring to the Reed supporters/celeb outcry, many of whom make this exact leap. 

[ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2678]

15 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

This kind of strikes at the heart of it, especially the last sentence.

First you do the DNA test.  Then the lawyers have to make yet another motion for new trial by some vehicle, I'm not sure what at this point.

Then, if a story can be concocted that the DNA changes things enough to grant a new trial, you do the whole thing over again 21 some odd years later.

There is no legal vehicle for determining the credibility of the two witnesses or for considering the impact of the new DNA test other than to re-try the entire case.

 

In some of these cases, the DNA evidence is enough to negate the guilt of the defendant all by itself.  A retrial becomes unnecessary because everyone agrees it would be a waste of time, except occasionally an over-zealous prosecutor.  In this particular case, the DNA seems to resolve nothing.

I'm not 100% up to speed on the particular posture of this case. But to get post-conviction DNA testing (unless both parties agree to it), there must be a showing made that the result could be exculpatory. So there's the rub.

And there certainly is a legal vehicle for determining credibility of these new witnesses -- it happens on habeas review all the time, which is the stage they're at. You go back to the district court and hold a live hearing, and the judge makes findings and conclusions. The claim has to be back-doored in by way of an ineffective assistance of counsel or prosecutorial misconduct claim, for example.  Or if an actual innocence claim is successful in arguing that there is new evidence that, more likely than not, would have resulted in a different outcome at trial. If he's successful at that hurdle on habeas review and witnesses are deemed credible, then the court recommends that relief is granted in the form of a new trial (or the State declines to go forward with another trial). Then the CCA accepts or rejects the rec.

[Gourmand 7774]

Parole Board unanimously recommended a 120 day delay, no word yet from Gov. Abbott.

https://www.statesman.com/news/20191115/parole-board-backs-delay-in-rodney-reedrsquos-execution

[BigDHornfan 6549]

https://www.fox4news.com/news/texas-parole-board-recommends-delaying-execution-of-rodney-reed?fbclid=IwAR1pEk6KPTdaU8FFtCRqQKwF51QDT4TbAddpHx7pbJZOdh81mb1baje_4Es

[TwiceHorn 31510]

Fine.  I'm ok with that. 

If we'd just dispense with the death penalty, we could avoid all or most of this nonsense.

Edited November 15, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[4th and 5 4914]

On 11/14/2019 at 9:35 AM, SquishMitten said:

Then you should’ve gotten a better attorney. One who asserts defense of others. 

I’m sure there are examples, but I’d bet there are more instances where a Texas prosecutor chose NOT to file murder charges in my scenario than that chose to pursue it. And I bet a lot of those didn’t make it past the grand jury.

In either case, it seems like he got a fair trial and had plenty of opportunity to raise these issues beforehand. Sorry if this latest appeal rings hollow to me. Like I said, I don’t support DP for someone who commits murder. But violent, serial rapists don’t get any sympathy from me. Personally, I think rape is worse than murder. The dead person isn’t suffering anymore. The dead person doesn’t benefit whatsoever from DP. But the rape victim will be traumatized for the rest of their life. I think for those victims, knowing their rapist can never come for them again actually provides some level of healing. And when you’re talking about raped children? DP is better than they deserve. 

I misunderstood your question. Or maybe it depends on the facts. Right then and there, and it was actually defending her, then no problem. If it was some kid, and I pulled the kid off her and stomped his head in after the assault was over? Well that might be a different story.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

I don’t have a problem with their decision either.  

[TwiceHorn 31510]

4 hours ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

I'm not 100% up to speed on the particular posture of this case. But to get post-conviction DNA testing (unless both parties agree to it), there must be a showing made that the result could be exculpatory. So there's the rub.

And there certainly is a legal vehicle for determining credibility of these new witnesses -- it happens on habeas review all the time, which is the stage they're at. You go back to the district court and hold a live hearing, and the judge makes findings and conclusions. The claim has to be back-doored in by way of an ineffective assistance of counsel or prosecutorial misconduct claim, for example.  Or if an actual innocence claim is successful in arguing that there is new evidence that, more likely than not, would have resulted in a different outcome at trial. If he's successful at that hurdle on habeas review and witnesses are deemed credible, then the court recommends that relief is granted in the form of a new trial (or the State declines to go forward with another trial). Then the CCA accepts or rejects the rec.

I stand corrected, then.

[4th and 5 4914]

On 11/14/2019 at 7:27 AM, Johnny Sack said:

What’s the cite on that 9 to 1?  Because that’s highly doubtful to me.  

https://files.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/pdf/FactSheet.f1573740480.pdf

9 executions for every exoneration, roughly

On 11/14/2019 at 7:30 AM, Johnny Sack said:

Bayardo’s testimony was sound in Morton. The DA just misrepresented it to the jury

His time of death testimony was bullshit, and that was the scientific evidence the jury relied on along with the note and Ken Anderson’s completely made up trial theory

On 11/14/2019 at 9:09 AM, Johnny Sack said:

Been slow at work this week.  I've read through the trial transcripts.  The evidence presented against him was very compelling.  

Still wanting to see the punishment phase trial transcripts.  Because that has the testimony and evidence of the other women he raped (not admissible in guilt/innocence phase).  I have seen it summarized in state's brief and criminal court of appeals opinion with record cites.  But would like to read the transcript.  It is not downloaded to this site yet.  But this has the trial transcripts for anyone interested:

https://rodneyreedfulltruth.com/4-may-4-1998-morning-session-opening-statements/

Thanks for taking the time.

My buddies and I have a saying when we are rolling into court prepared to give the state a beating on a good case....we call it “channeling our inner Lisa Tanner.” Because when you see her command a courtroom, you better hope you aren’t the defendant. Or the defense attorney, because she is damn good.

On 11/14/2019 at 9:55 AM, hayden_horn said:

this is a great point. i hate it when we use other allegations to convict someone of another crime. look, he may have done it, and the case may stand on its own merits. i honestly haven't done the research that @Johnny Sack has on the case. but it seems to me that if his guilt is so clear, why not test the goddamn belt? put the whole thing to bed. the rampant stonewalling by district attorneys in this state on dna testing is something i see as a massive problem, given the number of exonerations we have seen. the whole system was supposed to be built in this manner: "all presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously, for the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." 

we often lose sight of this in our bloodlust for justice. 

i would also like to see a citation on that 9-1 ratio, mostly to use myself in the future.

https://files.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/pdf/FactSheet.f1573740480.pdf

On 11/14/2019 at 10:40 AM, Johnny Sack said:

I don't think that at all.  I think he is guilty as shit for Stites.  And his other offenses establish he is a serial predator.

Just like if a Ted Bundy victim had his DNA on her.  Him claiming it was do to a consensual relationship wouldn't go far with me.

 

Yes, I agree. I wasn’t up to speed on the priors, and the media coverage makes it sound like he was definitely wrongfully convicted. I question now whether he was. And I don’t like him being used as the DP poster boy.

If he claims it was a consensual relationship, all the other assaults come in evidence to disprove his trial theory.

 For some of you lay folks who do not understand criminal law, typically prior bad acts are not admissible to show that the person committed the offense on the occasion in question. However if the defendant takes a position that there was a lack of intent, or there was a mistake, prior similar incidents can be offered to rebut that theory. Imagine in a sexual assault of a child case, if the defendant was saying touching that girl where I did was just an accident, I didn’t do that intentionally.  And then there was 10 other little girls that said he says he accidentally touched me there too. Or put his character in issue by offering evidence that he would never do something like that, and there are many others no claim he did. Or to rebut the defendant’s trial theory that the complainant fabricated the allegation  

 

[Paper_jam 831]

I'm not a lawyer (as will immediately become apparent) and I'm also not well-informed about the current criteria that apply when a sentence of death is being considered. However, in the finest American tradition, this will not stop me from proposing my own ridiculous solution to these kinds of cases. When the prosecution is seeking the death penalty, the guilty/not guilty determination should be modified so that the jury either finds the defendant A) Not guilty; B) Guilty, based on the current "beyond reasonable doubt" threshold;  or C) Superguilty.  "Superguilty", as defined by me, means that the evidence is so clear and incontrovertible that virtually no doubt remains that the accused committed the crime. In the sentencing phase, the death penalty could be applied only for a "Superguilty" conviction.

(This is a hypothetical kind of concept and I'm not making any claims about whether Reed is guilty or "superguilty" based on my terminology.)

 

 

 

 

[SquishMitten 10419]

You’re not the first to float that idea, and it’s not a bad one in theory. It’s just raising the standard to one that I don’t think exists in any jurisdiction in the US, maybe the world. There’s a reason for that. Absent an admission, close up HD footage of the act, or something like that, good defense attorneys get paid lots of money for a reason. It’s not hard to create .00001% of doubt in most cases.

[Ellellelle 314]

You can't even trust admissions of guilt for this kind of thing. People are strange.

I really want to know how Oprah, Dr. Phil, and Ms. Kim "I'd be a lawyer if it weren't for all the school" Kardashian explain away that there seems to be strong evidence that he raped a kid. If his conviction somehow by a miracle gets overturned, he's gotta go to trial for all those other rapes, including that little girl. I just don't understand why this is the hill people want to die on. He should be under the jail for what he did to her alone.

[SDG 3319]

1 minute ago, Ellellelle said:

You can't even trust admissions of guilt for this kind of thing. People are strange.

I really want to know how Oprah, Dr. Phil, and Ms. Kim "I'd be a lawyer if it weren't for all the school" Kardashian explain away that there seems to be strong evidence that he raped a kid. If his conviction somehow by a miracle gets overturned, he's gotta go to trial for all those other rapes, including that little girl. I just don't understand why this is the hill people want to die on. He should be under the jail for what he did to her alone.

Unfortunately as others have said you have to take their body of work in a silo.  I call that bullshit; quit setting aside indictments and move forward with all cases.  People who have a pattern of these types of crimes should fry. 

[gsoda3 3263]

They just gave him an indefinite stay of execution.

[scottsins 1968]

You can't even trust admissions of guilt for this kind of thing. People are strange.

I really want to know how Oprah, Dr. Phil, and Ms. Kim "I'd be a lawyer if it weren't for all the school" Kardashian explain away that there seems to be strong evidence that he raped a kid. If his conviction somehow by a miracle gets overturned, he's gotta go to trial for all those other rapes, including that little girl. I just don't understand why this is the hill people want to die on. He should be under the jail for what he did to her alone.

Yeah. There is no standard higher than BRD, other than ZERO doubt. ZERO DOUBT is factually impossible. There is always a ridiculously implausible (but not impossible) doubt in any scenario. ALWAYS.

“But what if its on video with DNA confirmation!?!?”

A: “Maybe the suspect had a twin separated at birth!”

That is a doubt. It’s totally insane and laughable, but it’s a non-zero possibility. However, examples like this would be ridiculous and should not be legally sufficient to support an acquittal.

IOW, “the doubt isn’t a reasonable one”.

[Dr Fear 1268]

They just gave him an indefinite stay of execution.

More importantly, they sent it back to the trial court to examine the innocence claims. There will be hearings.

[TwiceHorn 31510]

14 hours ago, SDG said:

Unfortunately as others have said you have to take their body of work in a silo.  I call that bullshit; quit setting aside indictments and move forward with all cases.  People who have a pattern of these types of crimes should fry. 

While that sounds theoretically great, you have to consider how overburdened the system is.  Prosecutors/DAs should probably be called on the carpet more often for the cases they do try, as a waste of resources.  And then you have the distortions created by plea bargaining, which is absolutely 100% necessary.  We can't possibly try all the triable cases, let alone trying guys already on death row for other offenses.

[Pato del Muerto 52531]

22 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

While that sounds theoretically great, you have to consider how overburdened the system is.  Prosecutors/DAs should probably be called on the carpet more often for the cases they do try, as a waste of resources.  And then you have the distortions created by plea bargaining, which is absolutely 100% necessary.  We can't possibly try all the triable cases, let alone trying guys already on death row for other offenses.

But we can try

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19122]

The NY Times has been covering this, and seeing all the mommy bloggers and SJW types comment about how he is innocent and basing their opinion on KK and Oprah rather than the actual facts of the case is infuriating.

Ultimately, I am anti death penalty, but this is a person I'd make an exception for.

[DanRydell 799]

16 hours ago, Paper_jam said:

I'm not a lawyer (as will immediately become apparent) and I'm also not well-informed about the current criteria that apply when a sentence of death is being considered. However, in the finest American tradition, this will not stop me from proposing my own ridiculous solution to these kinds of cases. When the prosecution is seeking the death penalty, the guilty/not guilty determination should be modified so that the jury either finds the defendant A) Not guilty; B) Guilty, based on the current "beyond reasonable doubt" threshold;  or C) Superguilty.  "Superguilty", as defined by me, means that the evidence is so clear and incontrovertible that virtually no doubt remains that the accused committed the crime. In the sentencing phase, the death penalty could be applied only for a "Superguilty" conviction.

(This is a hypothetical kind of concept and I'm not making any claims about whether Reed is guilty or "superguilty" based on my terminology.)

 

 

 

 

It's hard to imagine this changing a single verdict. Do you really think there are jurors out there handing down guilty verdicts in capital murder trials who are thinking, "well, I do have some doubts, but those doubts aren't reasonable, so guilty it is!"

[SDG 3319]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

While that sounds theoretically great, you have to consider how overburdened the system is.  Prosecutors/DAs should probably be called on the carpet more often for the cases they do try, as a waste of resources.  And then you have the distortions created by plea bargaining, which is absolutely 100% necessary.  We can't possibly try all the triable cases, let alone trying guys already on death row for other offenses.

I get that, but at the first sign of appeal they need to move forward. In this case if there were other convictions on the books do you think the sjw’s would be so loud?  

[immortal13 4059]

18 hours ago, Ellellelle said:

You can't even trust admissions of guilt for this kind of thing. People are strange.

I really want to know how Oprah, Dr. Phil, and Ms. Kim "I'd be a lawyer if it weren't for all the school" Kardashian explain away that there seems to be strong evidence that he raped a kid. If his conviction somehow by a miracle gets overturned, he's gotta go to trial for all those other rapes, including that little girl. I just don't understand why this is the hill people want to die on. He should be under the jail for what he did to her alone.

At this point, I wouldn't mind if that happened. Let these imbeciles defend him for raping a 12 year old girl while biting and disfiguring her face. Fucking idiots. This monster needs to be executed as soon as possible 

[TwiceHorn 31510]

1 hour ago, SDG said:

I get that, but at the first sign of appeal they need to move forward. In this case if there were other convictions on the books do you think the sjw’s would be so loud?  

First, I'm not sure prosecutors give a rats ass about SJWs.  Second, the first sign of appeal was 21 years ago and appeals in death penalty cases are virtually automatic.  That doesn't distinguish this case from any other.

Even the outcry right now doesn't really justify the expense and time consumed by trying the other cases.

[DanRydell 799]

At this point, I wouldn't mind if that happened. Let these imbeciles defend him for raping a 12 year old girl while biting and disfiguring her face. Fucking idiots. This monster needs to be executed as soon as possible 

It is in fact possible for him to both be a monster and to be innocent of murder.

[immortal13 4059]

....

Edited November 16, 2019 by immortal13
Wrong thread

[Gourmand 7774]

 

Well done, Austin Chronicle. Five women were brutally victimized by Rodney Reed and rather than respect their experiences by letting your readers know what they went through, your reporting cast them into the role of co-conspirators with the racist Bastrop County cops who just wanted to Make a Murderer out of poor innocent Rodney Reed. 

Shameful.

[Ellellelle 314]

This kind of thing is something that was really bothering me last night. What happened to the #believewomen movement? Doesn't apply here because there's a small chance he didn't murder this poor woman? We're going backwards.

[TwiceHorn 31510]

6 minutes ago, Ellellelle said:

This kind of thing is something that was really bothering me last night. What happened to the #believewomen movement? Doesn't apply here because there's a small chance he didn't murder this poor woman? We're going backwards.

You don't really take #believewomen in order to justify putting someone to death.  That would be peak SJW.

We just need to stop talking about these unconvicted offenses as some justification for executing him on this conviction.

Stop.  It's wrong.  It's bad.  Just stop it.

[Ellellelle 314]

You don't really take #believewomen in order to justify putting someone to death.  That would be peak SJW.
We just need to stop talking about these unconvicted offenses as some justification for executing him on this conviction.
Stop.  It's wrong.  It's bad.  Just stop it.

I'm talking about the celebs (and the Austin Chronicle) who started the believe women movement, not the court of law. He should be tried on those crimes if his conviction gets overturned.

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19122]

Sigh.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/kim-kardashian-west-death-row-035105373.html

We as a country are so fucking stupid when this person is considered a "role model" and taken seriously.  

 

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19122]

To all our lawyer buddies, if KK passes the test and becomes a lawyer (what a fucking dumb rule, seriously), you guys should rise up in protest.  That is just fucking unbelievable.  

[TwiceHorn 31510]

11 minutes ago, Ellellelle said:

13 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

You don't really take #believewomen in order to justify putting someone to death.  That would be peak SJW.
We just need to stop talking about these unconvicted offenses as some justification for executing him on this conviction.
Stop.  It's wrong.  It's bad.  Just stop it.

I'm talking about the celebs (and the Austin Chronicle) who started the believe women movement, not the court of law. He should be tried on those crimes if his conviction gets overturned.

Fair enough.  That's a valid point.

1 minute ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

Sigh.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/kim-kardashian-west-death-row-035105373.html

We as a country are so fucking stupid when this person is considered a "role model" and taken seriously.  

 

Agreed.  But one of the things we're epically stupid and fearful about is criminal justice issues.  Criminal justice reform needs Kardashians, unfortunately.  Dead wrong on this particular one, though.

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19122]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

Fair enough.  That's a valid point.

Agreed.  But one of the things we're epically stupid and fearful about is criminal justice issues.  Criminal justice reform needs Kardashians, unfortunately.  Dead wrong on this particular one, though.

I agree the system is broken.  I think it is a sad fucking state of affairs that it takes an absolute idiot like KK for people to pay attention.  Like I said, people in this country are fucking stupid.

[TwiceHorn 31510]

6 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

To all our lawyer buddies, if KK passes the test and becomes a lawyer (what a fucking dumb rule, seriously), you guys should rise up in protest.  That is just fucking unbelievable.  

She probably won't.  It's not the CPA exam, but it's not trivial either.  People go to law school and bar review and routinely fail the Cali bar.  While an "apprenticeship" is a requirement, it's not good preparation.  

I see she's already bitching about 18 hours a week.  Studying for the bar is a 12 hour a day proposition, for weeks.

Edited November 17, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31510]

1 minute ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

I agree the system is broken.  I think it is a sad fucking state of affairs that it takes an absolute idiot like KK for people to pay attention.  Like I said, people in this country are fucking stupid.

I should say, criminal justice reform probably needs celebretards.  It doesn't need Kim Kardashian specifically.  Or any of the rest of that brood.

[DanRydell 799]

54 minutes ago, Ellellelle said:

This kind of thing is something that was really bothering me last night. What happened to the #believewomen movement? Doesn't apply here because there's a small chance he didn't murder this poor woman? We're going backwards.

What women aren't being believed? By whom?

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19122]

42 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

She probably won't.  It's not the CPA exam, but it's not trivial either.  People go to law school and bar review and routinely fail the Cali bar.  While an "apprenticeship" is a requirement, it's not good preparation.  

I see she's already bitching about 18 hours a week.  Studying for the bar is a 12 hour a day proposition, for weeks.

A.  I am a CPA.  And yes, it is easy.

B.  There is no longer an apprentice CPA.  You have to have the equivalent of a master's degree to even sit the exam.