It looks very likely that the state of Texas will execute Ruben Gutierrez on July 16 without ever having DNA tested fingernail scrapings, bloodstains, and hair that he says will prove he is not a murderer.
Gutierrez was convicted in 1999 of conspiring with two other men to rob Escolastica Harrison, the operator of a Brownsville trailer park. The state’s evidence showed that two of the three men entered Harrison’s mobile home and killed her as they searched for hidden cash. Gutierrez has long asserted that he stayed outside the home and had no idea the others were planning to murder Harrison. His attorneys have argued there is no forensic evidence connecting him to the murder and that he was convicted on the strength of a false confession he offered when police threatened to jail his wife and have his kids placed in foster care.
For the last 13 years, Gutierrez has been trying to get some court, any court, to order the DNA testing to help prove he wasn’t in the room when Harrison was killed. The request was first denied in 2011 by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the same court that recently approved Gov. Greg Abbott’s pardon of convicted murderer Daniel Perry. The CCA ruled that since Gutierrez had been convicted under Texas’ controversial “law of parties” statute – which specifies that anyone involved in a crime can be held accountable for other crimes committed during its commission – it didn’t really matter whether he’d entered the trailer. In other words, he could still be executed even if he hadn’t harmed, or meant to harm, Harrison, so why allow the testing?
Gutierrez continued fighting for the testing, however, and in 2019 he and his attorney, Shawn Nolan, challenged the constitutionality of the Texas laws governing when DNA from settled cases can be tested. Nolan describes these laws as one of the classic Catch-22’s of the death penalty.
“One statute says that you can file an appeal that you should not have received the death penalty,” Nolan said. “And then the other statute says you can only get DNA testing if you can prove you’re innocent. Well, how do you prove you’re innocent before you get the testing? It’s a Catch-22 that violates due process and the Constitution.”
“[One] statute says you can only get DNA testing if you can prove you’re innocent. Well, how do you prove you’re innocent before you get the testing? It’s a Catch-22.”– Attorney Shawn Nolan
Nolan has appealed the case to the United States Supreme Court and thinks it’s possible the justices will take it. Meanwhile, he continues to wonder why the state of Texas would go on sending its attorneys to oppose DNA testing if they’re confident Gutierrez’s verdict is correct.
“There’s no question that if this case happened today, everything would be tested,” Nolan said. “So our position has always been, what are they so afraid of? It’s certainly not the cost – we’ve offered to pay for it.”
SBS
Meanwhile, the Innocence Project is gearing up to save the life of Robert Roberson, now that Texas has set Roberson’s execution for Oct. 17. According to the Innocence Project, which is representing Roberson, if the execution goes forward he will be the first person in the country to be put to death on the basis of “shaken baby syndrome,” a concept that is now under scrutiny.
Since 1992, at least 32 parents and caregivers in 18 states have been exonerated after being convicted under the shaken baby hypothesis, according to the National Registry of Exonerations.
Roberson was convicted of murdering his 2-year-old daughter Nikki in 2003. Nikki had battled a high fever and undiagnosed pneumonia in the week before her death. Roberson said she died after a fall from her crib.
Roberson’s case has echoes of those of Rosa Jimenez and Melissa Lucio, who are also represented by Innocence Project attorneys. Like Roberson, Jimenez and Lucio were convicted of murdering toddlers after scientists presented testimony at their trials that was later found to be misleading. Jimenez was exonerated and released last August after 20 years behind bars. A judge overseeing Lucio’s trial court recommended in April that her conviction be overturned. She is currently waiting for the CCA, the same court that has refused DNA testing to Gutierrez, to sign off on the request.
Source:
austinchronicle.com, Brant Bingamon, July 12, 2024
_____________________________________________________________________
"One is absolutely sickened, not by the crimes that the wicked have committed,
but by the punishments that the good have inflicted."
— Oscar Wilde
