[Puffer Fish]

A woman was found strangled to death with her own belt, her body left on the side of a road. Detectives found signs on the body that suggested rape, and a man's sperm was found in her, which was matched to a suspect through DNA testing.

They arrested a suspect. The suspect was black, the victim was white.
The black man claimed that he had been having an affair with the woman. The defense suggested that the woman's fiance, who was a white police officer, may have been the one who killed her. (perhaps he had found out about the affair and killed her in a fit of rage)

The suspect is in prison on death row awaiting execution in Texas. The defense wants the authorities to test other crime scene evidence for DNA, to see if there is evidence that another person may have been present at the scene. Especially the belt that was used to strangle the victim, since it could be possible skin cells may have been left behind.

The case is being considered by the U.S. Supreme Court.

What do you think? Would it just be a waste of valuable money to subject all the evidence to additional DNA testing? Suppose they find someone else's DNA at the scene. Would it really prove anything?

The black suspect's name is Rodney Reed, and the victim was Stacey Stites, aged 19 at the time.

U.S. Supreme Court mulls Texas death row inmate Rodney Reed's DNA testing bid, Andrew Chung, Reuters, October 11, 2022


This sounds like a difficult case. I usually immediately form a pretty strong opinion about these type of stories, but this one I'm not sure what to think.

It's not completely impossible she could be having an affair with him. I have personally known of very attractive young white women who had a casual sexual affair with a black man who was much bigger and less attractive than them, simply because they wanted the big black (*)(*)(*)(*). And her fiance could have been abusive towards her, that is not that uncommon with police officers. Maybe even the abuse is part of what drove her to have an affair with a black man.
On the other hand, if he did rape her and is responsible for her death, he definitely deserves the death penalty. That type of situation suggests a strong likelihood that it was he who raped her, rather than any alternative explanation.

[Puffer Fish]

Once police had a match for Stacey Stites' DNA, they decided to test it against some of the other unsolved rape cases in Bastrop dating back at least 10 years to see if they saw any other matches.

According to prosecutors, Reed's DNA also matched two unsolved rape cases. One of them involved a brutal assault against a 12 year old girl.

During the punishment phase of Reed's trial for the murder of Stacey, both the other female victim and the 12 year old girl victim testified, although neither was able to recognize Reed as their attacker from his face. The jury was also shown bite marks on the 12 year old girl's face from the brutal assault.

Reed did not go to trial for these other separate attacks because he was already on trial for the capital murder of Stacey.

"Everybody says he's innocent, and they just don't know the whole story," said Schlueter, Reed's last alleged victim.

Many of Reed's supporters point out that Reed has never been convicted of rape beyond Stacey Stites. His brother, Rodrick Reed, said that he thinks Rodney Reed may have been framed. "What makes you think they won't set him up, make him look to be like a rapist? They are very corrupt down here," Rodrick Reed said.

Bryce Benjet is Rodney Reed’s current lawyer. He works with the non-profit Innocence Project.
"What we have here is we have a bunch of allegations," Benjet said. "They're all very different. They go back over the course of a long time, and they were never really vetted."

Rodney Reed was convicted by an all-white jury of raping and killing Stacey Stites on May 29, 1998, and was given the death sentence.

Rodney Reed: Texas man on death row for Stacey Stites murder | kvue.com, November 14, 2019

It sounds like Reed is being blamed for multiple rapes. Yet I suppose it is kind of unfair to Reed to be using evidence of other alleged rapes against him when there was not really any specific trial for those crimes.

DNA evidence is pretty strong.
Could local law enforcement detectives have had a reason to falsify evidence in order to secure a conviction, because they believed this black man was guilty and did not want to let a black man escape punishment for the rape and murder of a white woman?

[Puffer Fish]

I know this is might be a little too complicated for most of you to understand, but because the prosecutor only presented the jury with the other alleged victims during the punishment phase of the trial, even if hypothetically evidence were to emerge that the DNA test results linking him to other two victims were incorrect or falsified, then there would still technically not be a legal reason to overturn his murder conviction, since the evidence used to convict him was presented during the punishment phase, not the earlier part of the trial when the jury was deciding whether to convict of murder.

In other words, even if we prove that the detectives were corrupt and framed him, and if there was nothing to tie him to the other two rapes, that still might not affect his murder conviction. Because the jury chose to convict him without the evidence about the other women. It would however be a completely valid reason to appeal the death sentence, however.

But despite the legalities, in my view it SHOULD very much affect the determination of guilt if we found out those DNA tests linking him to other victims were wrong.

[Fasces]

Would it just be a waste of valuable money to subject all the evidence to additional DNA testing?

A DNA test for court costs about $300 for consumers.

To retest the DNA from the 3 rapes, this is $900.

To be explicitly clear: you think $900 is too expensive to spend to save a potentially innocent person from being killed.

You value the life of this black person at or below $900.

If you had a choice between $901 and saving the life of a black person, you would choose the $901.

[ness31]

Why wasn’t all DNA collected from the crime scene?

[Godstud]

@Fasces, Puffer Fish has repeatedly stood up for rapists and child molesters, so I guess this guy's skin colour isn't the right shade for him.

A DNA request in this day and age is completely rational, and as demonstrated, a cheap way to prove or disprove innocence.

[Puffer Fish]

Why wasn’t all DNA collected from the crime scene?

Expense. It probably would have cost over 10,000 to test EVERYTHING.

But the defense mainly wants authorities to test the belt, for traces of residue. That would probably cost at least 3,500 , I am guessing.

This type of forensic DNA testing for crime scenes is not cheap. They have to be able to test tiny microscopic samples and collect and separately test from many different areas.

[Godstud]

So what if it costs over $10,000 to do the DNA tests? This is a drop in the bucket compared to the normal court costs, which probably are already over $1 million.

You nitpicking about minor costs is telling.

Do you want the courts to stop court cases or just not pursue justice because of the costs of doing so? Do you think anyone else besides you, wants that?

Why aren't you commenting on Trump's court case, where the chances of conviction are low, and yet it's costing millions of tax-payers dollars to pursue it?

[ness31]

I just thought it was pretty standard to test for all dna at crime scenes. That’s what they do on TV anyway

[Puffer Fish]

So what if it costs over $10,000 to do the DNA tests? This is a drop in the bucket compared to the normal court costs, which probably are already over $1 million.

Look, if you look at all the already existing evidence, there's a 95% chance he did it.

Let's suppose the test were done. There's a high chance it might not find anything, even if Reed was not the one who committed the murder.

But let's suppose the test uncovers DNA of some other strange man. There could be many explanations for that. That does not automatically mean Reed is innocent.

One of the things the Supreme Court is going to take into account is what the probability is that the test would even find something that would change their decision. Even if the test does find the DNA of another man, that does not mean authorities are going to decide not to execute Reed.

I think the only thing that could possibly save Reed at this point is if they find the DNA of another strange man who has a prior rape conviction.

I think one other factor, Texas authorities might not want to allow a test to be done because it could risk "proving them wrong". I mean, suppose because of the results of the test the court exonerates Reed and releases him. That still doesn't mean they know Reed is innocent, just that the totality weight of all the evidence is not as high anymore. Well that will not make the prosecutors or justice system look good. It is symbolic that they may have made a mistake. Many prosecutors are there to win, and especially in Texas they don't like to admit they may have made a mistake.

So one of the reasons they might not want to do is a test is they are afraid they might have to release him. And even if the test shows someone else's DNA and it is decided they should release him, that still does not mean they know he did not do it.

The same thing exists in medicine. Oftentimes they may decide not to do a test simply because they know if they do the test it could result in a high chance of a surgery being performed that will be unnecessary and not provide benefit.

I know this may be a difficult concept for many of you to understand. It can seem counterintuitive, but you need to look at this with math and logic.

[Fasces]

Well as long as a Texas prosecutor feels good about himself, kill the lad.

[Puffer Fish]

I think the point is, this is going to be a very complicated decision, whether the Supreme Court wants to decide to take up this case.
The fact that it even reached the Supreme Court in the first place demonstrates it is a difficult decision.

One thing the court will have to decide is whether they think the test (and what it might be likely to reveal) would even be likely to make much of a difference or change the outcome of the murder case.

But even if they decide that it would, they would still have to come up with other legally justifiable reasons to intervene. Because the Supreme Court will not be deciding whether Reed should be exonerated, but rather only whether they should order the state of Texas to do additional testing.

[Godstud]

95% is not good enough if you are going to execute someone. You need to be 100% sure. This is not "surgery" and your comparison is absurd and illogical, as the outcomes are completely different.

Getting additional DNA tests is a small price to pay to make sure that it's 100%, which is what the prosecution should be aiming for.

[Puffer Fish]

Getting additional DNA tests is a small price to pay to make sure that it's 100%, which is what the prosecution should be aiming for.

That opinion could be right in some cases, but it is not so clear that it is right in this one.

We have to consider the expected probability that the test would result in a change in outcome.

And not only that but we have to try to calculate the odds that justice would be done.

For example, suppose we decide that we are willing to convict someone if there is a 99% chance they did it, but not if there is a 98% chance they did it. Now even if a test will result in an exoneration, and totally change our decision, that is STILL not necessarily a logically adequate enough reason to do the test.

If we don't do the test, there is a 99% chance we are right and a 1% chance we are wrong. If we do the test, those statistics don't actually improve very much.
It's not like suddenly the test proves 100% that the defendant is innocent.

Even if the outcome of the test results in the accused being turned loose, is that really that strong of a benefit if there is still a high chance the accused could be guilty?

So the amount of that expected benefit has to be weighed against the cost of the test.

[Godstud]

Considering that DNA testing has proven the guilt and innocence of so many, it would be irresponsible for them not to do it.

[Puffer Fish]

Considering that DNA testing has proven the guilt and innocence of so many, it would be irresponsible for them not to do it.

Logical fallacy. That's an oversimplification.

This test is not going to prove "guilt or innocence". It is not that black and white.

[Puffer Fish]

95% is not good enough if you are going to execute someone. You need to be 100% sure.

Well, the state of Texas disagrees with you.

The fact that the suspect is black might play a small factor here. If he were white, maybe they would want to be 98.5% sure before they executed him.

[Godstud]

I don't give a fig what the state of Texas agrees with. The mere use of the death penalty is uncivilized and barbaric. That Texas still uses it says a lot about how shit their morality is.

Since he's black you don't care if it's less, though, right? It's nice that you acknowledge your racism, but combined with your other posts, it paints a pretty ugly picture of the kind of person you are.

[Puffer Fish]

It probably wasn't the best idea for a black guy - a black guy who had previously been suspected in the rape of a white woman but was never convicted - to then go sleeping around with a white woman who was already in a relationship and engaged to a police officer, especially in this part of Texas.
Even if there's a chance this black guy is innocent, he had to be incredibly stupid and has to be seen as at least a little bit partially responsible for this situation. He should have known he was putting himself in harms way.

[Godstud]

A black guy can sleep with whomever he wants, even white women, you racist piece of shit.

Racism isn't an argument.