Reed v. Goertz

Last updated
Reed v. Goertz
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued October 11, 2022
Decided April 19, 2023
Full case nameReed v. Goertz
Docket no. 21-442
Citations598 U.S. ___ ( more )
Argument Oral argument
Opinion announcement Opinion announcement
Case history
PriorUnited States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit No. 19-70022
Questions presented
Did the statute of limitations begin to run when Reed's motion was denied or when the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied to rehear the trial?
Holding
The statute of limitations, a procedural due process claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, begins to run when the state litigation ends.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch  · Brett Kavanaugh
Amy Coney Barrett  · Ketanji Brown Jackson
Case opinions
MajorityKavanaugh, joined by Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, Jackson
DissentThomas
DissentAlito, joined by Gorsuch
Laws applied
US Constitutional Amendment V, 42 U.S. Code § 1983

Reed v. Goertz, 598 U.S. ___ (2023), is a United States Supreme Court case regarding the statute of limitations.

Contents

Background

A Texas jury found Rodney Reed guilty of the murder of Stacey Stites. [1] He was sentenced to death. In 2014, Reed filed a motion in Texas state court under the state's post-conviction DNA testing law. He requested DNA testing on certain pieces of evidence, including the belt used to strangle Stites. The state court denied Reed's motion, reasoning that the items Reed requested to be tested were not preserved through an adequate chain of custody. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals agreed and denied Reed's motion for a rehearing. Reed then sued in federal court under 42 U.S. Code §1983, a U.S. Code allowing citizens to sue state officials for violating civil rights, [2] claiming that Texas's post-conviction DNA testing law failed to provide procedural due process. Reed also argued that the law's strict chain of custody requirements was unconstitutional. The District Court dismissed his complaint while The Fifth Circuit affirmed on the ground that Reed’s §1983 claim was filed too late, after the applicable 2-year statute of limitations had run. The Fifth Circuit held that the limitations period began to run when the Texas trial court denied Reed’s motion, not when the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied rehearing. [3] [4]

Supreme Court decision

Reed sought review of the Fifth Circuit decision by the Supreme Court and filed a writ of certiorari. [5] The Supreme Court decided 6-3 that the limitations began when state litigation ended, which was when the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied Reed's motion for rehearing on the DNA testing claim, reversing the Fifth Circuit's decision. [6] It is unclear when Reed's execution will occur. [5]

Related Research Articles

<i>Bernal v. Fainter</i> 1984 United States Supreme Court case

Bernal v. Fainter, 467 U.S. 216 (1984), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Equal Protection Clause prohibited the state of Texas from barring noncitizens from applying for commission as a notary public.

Napoleon Beazley was an American convicted murderer executed by lethal injection by the State of Texas for the murder of 63-year-old businessman John Luttig in 1994.

Henry Watkins Skinner was an American death row inmate in Texas. In 1995, he was convicted of bludgeoning to death his live-in girlfriend, Twila Busby, and stabbing to death her two adult sons, Randy Busby and Elwin Caler. On March 24, 2010, twenty minutes before his scheduled execution, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay of execution to consider the question of whether Skinner could request testing of DNA his attorney chose not to have tested at his original trial in 1994. A third execution date for November 9, 2011, was also ultimately stayed by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals on November 7, 2011.

Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (2003), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, which held that California's retroactive extension of the statute of limitations for sexual offenses committed against minors was an unconstitutional ex post facto law.

<i>Baker v. Wade</i> U.S. court case on sodomy

Baker v. Wade 563 F.Supp 1121, rev'd 769 F.2nd 289 cert denied 478 US 1022 (1986) is a federal lawsuit challenging the legality of the sodomy law of the state of Texas. Plaintiff Donald Baker contended that the law violated his rights to privacy and equal protection. After a victory at trial, an appellate court reversed the lower court's decision and in the wake of its decision in Bowers v. Hardwick the Supreme Court of the United States refused to review it.

Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521 (2011), is a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the route through which a prisoner may obtain biological DNA material for testing to challenge his conviction; whether through a civil rights suit or a habeas corpus petition. A majority of the Court held that the civil rights path was the appropriate path.

United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 U.S. 858 (1982), is a United States Supreme Court case that determined the constitutionality of deporting aliens who might give testimony in criminal alien smuggling prosecutions. Because deporting alien witnesses might take away a testimony that would be both “material and favorable” to the defendant, it gives rise to a potential motion from the defense to dismiss the indictment under the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Maples v. Thomas, 565 U.S. 266 (2012), is a United States Supreme Court ruling in which the Court ruled 7–2 that Cory R. Maples, who had been convicted of murdering two people and faced a possible death sentence, should get another opportunity in court because his lawyers at Sullivan & Cromwell had abandoned him.

Fisher v. University of Texas, 570 U.S. 297 (2013), also known as Fisher I, is a United States Supreme Court case concerning the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Texas at Austin. The Supreme Court voided the lower appellate court's ruling in favor of the university and remanded the case, holding that the lower court had not applied the standard of strict scrutiny, articulated in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) and Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), to its admissions program. The Court's ruling in Fisher took Grutter and Bakke as given and did not directly revisit the constitutionality of using race as a factor in college admissions.

Mullenix v. Luna, 577 U.S. ___ (2015), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a police officer who shot a suspect during a police pursuit was entitled to qualified immunity. In a per curiam opinion, the Court held that prior precedent did not establish "beyond debate" that the officer's actions were objectively unreasonable.

Nichols v. United States, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) does not require an individual to update his registration after departing a state.

Fisher v. University of Texas, 579 U.S. 365 (2016), also known as Fisher II, is a United States Supreme Court case which held that the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit correctly found that the University of Texas at Austin's undergraduate admissions policy survived strict scrutiny, in accordance with Fisher v. University of Texas (2013), which ruled that strict scrutiny should be applied to determine the constitutionality of the University's race-conscious admissions policy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">James C. Ho</span> American judge (born 1973)

James Chiun-Yue Ho is a Taiwanese-born American lawyer and jurist serving since 2018 as a U.S. circuit judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. He was appointed by President Donald Trump. Ho formerly served as Solicitor General of Texas from 2008 to 2010.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Andrew Oldham</span> American judge (born 1978)

Andrew Stephen Oldham is a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and former General Counsel to Texas Governor Greg Abbott.

Henderson v. United States, 568 U.S. 266 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held regardless of whether a legal question was settled or unsettled at the time of trial, an error is "plain" within the meaning of Rule 52(b) of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure so long as the error was plain at the time of appellate review.

June Medical Services, LLC v. Russo, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that a Louisiana state law placing hospital-admission requirements on abortion clinics doctors was unconstitutional. The law mirrored a Texas state law that the Court found unconstitutional in 2016 in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt (WWH).

Rodney Rodell Reed is an American death row inmate who was convicted on May 18, 1998, by a Bastrop County District Court jury for the April 1996 abduction, rape, and murder of Stacey Stites, a 19-year-old resident of Giddings, Texas.

Cameron v. EMW Women's Surgical Center, P.S.C., 595 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the ability of state officials to intervene to defend the constitutionality of state laws.

Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. v. Hewitt, 598 U.S. 39 (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. ___ (2024), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and whether it confers the government's ability to prohibit firearm possession by a person with a civil domestic violence restraining order in the absence of a corresponding criminal domestic violence conviction or charge.

References

  1. Asgarian, Roxanna (2023-04-19). "U.S. Supreme Court lets Texas death row inmate Rodney Reed pursue DNA testing in bid to prove innocence". The Texas Tribune. Retrieved 2024-06-23.
  2. Hannon, Mike. "Research Guides: Civil Rights in the United States: Section 1983 (42 U.S.C. § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights) & Bivens Actions". libguides.law.umn.edu. Retrieved 2024-06-26.
  3. United States, U.S. Supreme Court (U.S.). Reed v. Goertz. United States Reports, vol. 598, 19 Apr. 2023. Supreme Court, www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-442_e1p3.pdf. Accessed 23 June 2024.
  4. United States, Fifth Circuit Court (5th Cir.). Reed v. Goertz. United States Reports, vol. __, 22 Apr. 2021. FindLaw, caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-5th-circuit/2123999.html. Accessed 26 June 2024.
  5. 1 2 Barer, David (2024-03-06). "Pending proceedings could reshape Rodney Reed death row case". KXAN Austin. Retrieved 2024-06-26.
  6. "Reed v. Goertz." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-442. Accessed 23 Jun. 2024.