Ruben Gutierrez, a Texas death row inmate, says that newly uncovered DNA evidence proves that he did not stab an 85-year-old woman to death inside her mobile home more two decades ago.
Texas prosecutors argue the testing, whatever it reveals, will not make a difference in his case. On Monday, the Supreme Court heard arguments over whether Mr. Gutierrez could request the testing, appearing narrowly divided on the question.
In July, the court took the extraordinary step of delaying Mr. Gutierrez’s execution just 20 minutes before he was to be put to death. It was the second time the court had halted his execution over legal disputes in the case.
Mr. Gutierrez was convicted and sentenced to death in 1999 for the robbery and the murder of 85-year-old Escolastica Harrison. Prosecutors accused him and two other men of planning to rob Ms. Harrison by luring her from her mobile home and of stealing cash that she kept inside it. Evidence at the trial showed that Ms. Harrison had been stabbed to death in her home.
Mr. Gutierrez maintains that he did not go inside Ms. Harrison’s home and was not aware of any plan to harm her. For more than a dozen years, Mr. Gutierrez has sought to have evidence from the crime scene, including a bloodstained shirt, hair and nail scrapings, tested under the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, arguing that none of these items would show his DNA.
The argument before the court was not about innocence — Mr. Gutierrez does not contend he played no role in the events that led to the killing — but rather about whether he should face the death penalty.
Under the Texas doctrine known as the “law of parties,” even people who do not actually kill, intend to kill or anticipate that someone will be killed during a crime can be found guilty of capital murder. That means that Mr. Gutierrez could be found guilty if he participated in the robbery, even if he didn’t take part in the killing.
But not everyone who is convicted under this legal doctrine can be sentenced to death. Mr. Gutierrez argues that DNA testing would bolster his claim that he didn’t kill Ms. Harrison and that he should have been spared the death penalty.
The case closely echoes that of Rodney Reed, a Texas death row prisoner who claimed that DNA testing might help prove his innocence. His story attracted the attention of lawmakers and celebrities, including Kim Kardashian and Rihanna. In 2023, in a 6-to-3 decision, written by Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, the justices sided with Mr. Reed to allow DNA testing.
William F. Cole, Texas’s deputy solicitor general, argued on Monday that Mr. Gutierrez’s request for testing should be denied because he could not demonstrate he had been harmed by the failure to conduct such testing and therefore lacked standing to sue. Standing is a legal doctrine that requires a party to show direct and concrete injuries to bring a challenge.
That argument prompted pushback from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of the court’s liberal justices and a former prosecutor.
“If you are sure of your conviction and your theory, why not do the testing?” Justice Sotomayor asked Mr. Cole.
Anne E. Fisher, an assistant federal defender who argued on behalf of Mr. Gutierrez, explained that the prisoner must show two things to avoid the death penalty. He must show that he wasn’t in the house and that he wasn’t a “major participant” in the crime.
Justice Kavanaugh seemed to be receptive to the argument by Mr. Gutierrez’s lawyers that DNA testing would chip away at the prosecutors’ claim that Mr. Gutierrez killed Ms. Harrison.
“If Gutierrez is nowhere to be found, again, I think that doesn’t defeat the state’s theory,” Justice Kavanaugh said. “But it undermines a little bit how they perceived all this to have transpired in the trailer.”
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. appeared skeptical that DNA testing would change the outcome.
“The DNA can’t show he wasn’t there,” Justice Alito said.
Early last year, a split three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rejected Mr. Gutierrez’s argument. The man then asked the Supreme Court to take his case. His lawyers called the appeals court ruling “wrong and pernicious.”
Mr. Gutierrez has been awaiting execution since his sentencing in 1999. Monday’s argument was the second time that the justices wrestled with legal issues in his case. In 2020, the justices intervened to stop his execution about an hour before it was to occur after lawyers for Mr. Gutierrez argued that his religious liberty had been violated after he was refused a request to have a Christian chaplain with him during his execution.
