Justices side with Texas death row inmate seeking DNA testing to show he shouldn't be executed
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled for a Texas death row inmate who is seeking DNA testing to show he should be ineligible for execution.
The 6-3 decision in favor of Ruben Gutierrez gives him a potential path to have evidence tested that his lawyers say would help prove he was not responsible for the fatal stabbing of an 85-year-old woman during a home robbery decades ago.
His lawyers have said there was no physical or forensic evidence connecting him to the killing and that he was not a major participant in the crime. Two others also were charged in the case.
Gutierrez's lawyers argued that his case was similar to that of Rodney Reed, another longtime death row inmate in Texas who also won a round at the Supreme Court in his fight for DNA testing that he says would show he is innocent of murder.
In July, the high court granted Gutierrez a stay of execution 20 minutes before he was to receive a lethal injection.
Gutierrez was sentenced to death for the 1998 killing of Escolastica Harrison at her home in Brownsville in Texas' southern tip. Prosecutors said the killing of the mobile home park manager and retired teacher was part of an attempt to steal more than $600,000 that she had hidden in her home because of her mistrust of banks.
Gutierrez had several previous execution dates in recent years that were delayed, including over issues related to having a spiritual adviser in the death chamber. In June 2020, Gutierrez was about an hour from execution when he received a stay from the Supreme Court.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Samuel Alito Accuses Supreme Court of Ignoring Congress—'Indefensible'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Justice Samuel Alito said the Supreme Court ignored Congress's intention in its ruling on retroactive relief under the First Step Act on Thursday. "Instead, the Court embraces an interpretation that has no limiting principle and affords petitioners a windfall," Alito wrote in his dissent. "That is an indefensible result based on indefensible reasoning. I cannot agree with the Court's decision, so I must respectfully dissent." Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett joined Alito's dissent. Why It Matters The case centers on the First Step Act, a 2018 law aimed at reforming federal prisons and sentencing laws. The legislation included more lenient sentencing guidelines for individuals who possess a firearm while committing other crimes. The law retroactively applies to an eligible offender whose sentence "has not been imposed." The Court majority ruled that any offender who appears before the court for sentencing since the First Step Act was enacted is subject to the new guidelines under the law, including offenders who are being resentenced. Justice Samuel Alito joins other members of the Supreme Court as they pose for a group portrait on October 7, 2022. Justice Samuel Alito joins other members of the Supreme Court as they pose for a group portrait on October 7, 2022. AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File What To Know In 2009, Tony Hewitt, Corey Duffey and Jarvis Ross were convicted of multiple counts of bank robbery and conspiracy to commit bank robbery, along with use of a firearm during a crime of violence. They were each sentenced to five years for their first use of a firearm offense, and 25 years for each count beyond their first. In total, they each received a sentence exceeding 325 years. Roughly 25 years of that sentence were due to robbery-related charges. A district court vacated the sentences and some convictions after the enactment of the First Step Act. At resentencing, Hewitt, Duffey and Ross argued that the more lenient penalties under the new legislation apply. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the Court's majority opinion, except for parts four and five, which Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch did not join. She said the law indicates that "only past sentences with continued validity preclude application of the Act's new penalties." Alito said that the law's text does not support the Court's "boundless interpretation," which would allow any defendant whose sentence is vacated to claim retroactive relief. "Indeed, the portions of today's decision that command the votes of only three Justices give the game away," he wrote. What People Are Saying Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in the Court majority opinion: "A judge would thus correctly conclude at resentencing that, if an offender's past sentence has been vacated, a sentence 'has not been imposed' upon that offender for purposes of the First Step Act; hence, the court can impose a new sentence today." Justice Samuel Alito, in a dissenting opinion: "Animating the Court's atextual interpretation is a thinly veiled desire to march in the parade of sentencing reform. But our role is to interpret the statute before us, not overhaul criminal sentencing." What Happens Next The Court's ruling reversed the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals' interpretation of the law. The case was remanded for further proceedings. Do you have a story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have any questions about this story? Contact LiveNews@
Fast Company
an hour ago
- Fast Company
Big Lots new store openings come with a warning for online shoppers: Don't fall for scam websites
Big Lots has been through a wild ride since the home discount retail chain filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection last September. In December 2024, the company announced that it would hold going-out-of-business sales at its remaining store locations. The following month, however, Big Lots announced that Variety Wholesalers—a retail company based in North Carolina—would acquire and operate hundreds of existing Big Lots stores. After a period of remodeling and restocking, Variety Wholesalers has since reopened 219 Big Lots stores in a handful of states. The openings took place in four waves, starting in April and ending in June. The final reopening phase concluded with the reopening of 78 Big Lots stores on June 5. While return of Big Lots is good news for fans of the brand, it may be exposing some unsuspecting bargain hunters to scams—particularly, for shoppers who prefer to buy things online. Big Lots warns of online scams Earlier this month, Big Lots took to social media to alert customers about the presence of online scams, explaining that its current website has no e-commerce component. 'BIG LOTS! no longer operates any ecommerce website,' the retailer wrote on its Facebook page. 'These are scam websites using our name and logo. Any purchases made through these websites should be IMMEDIATELY reported to your bank or credit card company. Our official website is The post attracted hundreds of comments, with some commenters saying they'd fallen victim to the bogus offers. Scammers have been targeting consumers with online ads impersonating Big Lots. Links within these ads direct hopeful shoppers to fake websites that are not affiliated with the official retailer. Be aware that any advertisements promoting online Big Lots deals are not legitimate. Some products are still listed on the official Big Lots website A section of the retailer's official website highlights products that Big Lots stores actually sell. Although there are no capabilities to make a purchase through the official Big Lots website, product listings include photos, descriptions, and prices. Jeff King, vice president of sales and marketing for Variety Wholesalers, told Fast Company that the products listed on the Big Lots website are meant to illustrate the deals available in-store. 'We do have products listed on our website to show the great values on the large variety of products we carry in our stores,' he said. 'We do this to encourage customers to visit our stores and see what deals they can find.' Bottom line: It's essential to be vigilant against online shopping scams. If you're hoping to shop at Big Lots, you'll need to visit a physical store.
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Neil Gorsuch Joins Liberals' Dissent Against Trump DOJ in Immigration Case
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch joined liberal justices in dissenting from the majority opinion in an immigration case handed down on Thursday. Why It Matters President Donald Trump's immigration policy and mass deportations have faced legal challenges, with the Supreme Court playing referee on whether many of these policies can stand. On Thursday, the court made a ruling on the case Riley v. Bondi, one of its final rulings of the term. What to Know The case centers around Pierre Riley, a man from Jamaica facing deportation from the United States who had been convicted on drug charges in 2008. After his release in 2021, immigration authorities took him into custody and sought his removal under a final administrative removal order (FARO). Riley did not contest his removal from the U.S. but said he should not be returned to Jamaica under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), citing concerns he could be killed by a drug kingpin if he were sent back to Jamaica. An immigration judge sent his case to a "withholding-only proceeding," which decided whether he could be removed to his home country. During that proceeding, a judge granted deferral of his removal to Jamaica over those concerns. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch poses for an official portrait in Washington, D.C. on October 7, 2022. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch poses for an official portrait in Washington, D.C. on October 7, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which opted to enforce the earlier removal order. He petitioned to appeal the order three days later—but the Fourth Circuit found that the petition came more than 30 days after the original order. The court was asked to weigh in on whether Riley's petition "was filed on time because it was filed within 30 days of the BIA order," or if it needed to be filed within 30 days of the original FARO. A second question also focused on whether the 30-day deadline is "jurisdictional." A majority of justices determined the FARO, not the BIA ruling, was not the final order of removal. "The statutory text and our precedents make clear that the FARO is the final order of removal in this case, and withholding-only proceedings do not disturb the finality of an otherwise final order of removal," the Court wrote in the majority opinion penned by Justice Samuel Alito. However, Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, joined the three liberal justices in dissenting from the case. The dissent was written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor and argued that the removal order did not become final until after the Board of Immigration rejected his CAT appeal. "The question is when Riley should have petitioned for judicial review of the Board's order," the dissent reads. "Was his petition due 30 days after the Government first notified him he would be deported, well over a year before the Board issued the order Riley sought to challenge? Or was it instead due 30 days after the order denying his claim for deferral of removal? The answer is clear: One should not be required to appeal an order before it exists." Sotomayor wrote that the majority's opinion rendered the statute in question "incoherent," writing that they held he "should have appealed the order one year and three months before the Board entered it." The dissent noted the result of the ruling could be that "noncitizens facing expedited removal will be forced to file immediate appeals of their removal orders in every case, simply to protect their right to judicial review in the event they lose their ongoing withholding-only proceedings." Notably, Gorsuch did not join part of the dissent in which Sotomayor warned of "untold damage to basic principles of finality and judicial review." On the other hand, justices all agreed on the second question that the 30-day deadline is not jurisdictional but merely a claims-processing rule. What People Are Saying Sotomayor wrote in the dissent: "Perhaps the idea is that noncitizens may seek judicial review of their CAT claims only if, by luck or happenstance, they also have a challenge to the underlying order of removal. The majority's finality rule, however, prevents CAT appeals even under those circumstances. After all, courts will likely finish reviewing the removal order before the Board ever hears the associated CAT claim." Justice Clarence Thomas, in a concurring opinion, wrote: "Riley has undoubtedly received a final order of removal. But, he has never sought judicial review of that order pursuant to the procedures outlined in §1252. This Court has held that 'CAT orders may be reviewed together with final orders of removal in a court of appeals.' Id., at 581 (emphasis added). But, as far as I am aware, we have never held that judicial review of CAT orders is available when an alien does not petition for review of a final order of removal." What Happens Next The Supreme Court is set to release the final decisions of its current term on Friday, Chief Justice John Roberts announced from the bench Thursday. Among the six remaining cases is a high-stakes challenge over whether President Donald Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship can be implemented nationwide. Other closely watched rulings include a dispute involving Maryland parents seeking to exempt their children from school lessons featuring LGBTQ storybooks due to religious objections, and a redistricting battle over the creation of a second majority-Black congressional district in Louisiana.
