Washington (AFP) - The US Supreme Court on Wednesday gave fresh support for a Texas death row inmate's quest to avoid execution, ruling that a lower court erred in cutting off his motion for a DNA review of the murder for which he was convicted.
Rodney Reed, 54, was supposed to be executed in 2019 when a public campaign on his behalf supported by entertainment stars like Kim Kardashian, Beyonce and Rihanna drew attention and the Texas appeals court placed a stay on it.
The African-American man was convicted by an all-white jury in 1998 of the rape and murder two years earlier of Stacey Stites, a 19-year-old white woman.
Traces of his sperm were found on the victim's body, and matched with DNA on record from an earlier sexual assault charge against him.
Reed claimed that he and Stites had a secret consensual relationship.
Supporters, including the influential Innocence Project, said "substantial" later evidence implicates Stites's fiancee, a former local police officer named Jimmy Fennell.
In 2014 Reed sought to demonstrate his innocence using a Texas statute that gives convicts the right to seek DNA review of their cases.
When Reed filed a motion in state court seeking a DNA review of 40 pieces of evidence from the crime, including the belt used to strangle Stites, it rejected him on the grounds that the evidence had not been adequately preserved by police.
After a state appeals court agreed with that decision, Reed appealed to federal court, saying his due process rights had been denied by not allowing the DNA review.The court again ruled against him.
When he then appealed that decision to the federal appeals court, it said the two-year statute of limitations for pursuing the case had expired.
The issue Reed asked the Supreme Court to rule on was technical: Did the federal appeals court incorrectly set the beginning of the two-year window, thus unfairly denying his petition.
In a six-to-three decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the lower court had erred on the timing of the statute of limitations, and infringed on Reed's right to due process under the law.
The majority made no comment on the facts of the case, only emphasizing the issue of when the two-year-window opened relative to lower court rulings.
"The sole question before this court at this time is whether Reed's federal lawsuit was timely.We conclude that it was timely," Justice Brett Kavanaugh said, announcing the decision.
