The Supreme Court has intervened once again in the case of Ruben Gutierrez, who was sentenced to die for the 1998 murder of 85-year-old Escolastica Harrison in Brownsville, Texas. Just after 6:30 p.m. Eastern time on July 16, 2024, the justices issued a brief unsigned order halting Gutierrez’s execution, which was scheduled for later that evening. This intervention occurs as the court considers whether to hear his appeal regarding DNA evidence testing.
Gutierrez has long asserted that he did not enter Harrison’s home on the night of her murder and was unaware anyone would be harmed. Central to his case at the Supreme Court is his request to access physical evidence—such as scrapings from under Harrison’s nails and a loose hair wrapped around her finger—for DNA testing at his own expense. His previous attempts to obtain this evidence were denied by state courts. However, in 2021, a federal district court ruled that the Texas law governing postconviction DNA testing was in violation of an inmate’s right to due process.
The decision by the federal district court was later overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which found that Gutierrez lacked the legal standing to bring his challenge. The appellate court also rejected Gutierrez’s request for reconsideration in May 2024.
Gutierrez petitioned the Supreme Court on June 25, asking for a stay of his execution. He argued that his case was similar to that of Rodney Reed, another Texas inmate who also sought DNA testing to prove his innocence. Gutierrez claimed that the Supreme Court had clarified that the requirements for standing are not stringent in such contexts, as demonstrated in Reed’s case. Conversely, the state countered that Gutierrez’s stance represented an exaggerated interpretation of Reed v. Goertz, accusing Gutierrez of attempting to simplify the standing analysis.
This is not the first instance the Supreme Court has stayed Gutierrez’s execution. In 2020, the Court granted a stay of execution an hour before it was scheduled to proceed, due to the state’s refusal to permit a spiritual advisor or clergy member to be present in the execution chamber.
For more details, visit the original article on SCOTUSblog.