The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up an appeal from a man on Texas’s death row who has long sought DNA analysis of the belt used to strangle a 19-year-old in 1996, leaving intact lower-court rulings that have blocked testing. The move keeps alive the prospect that the case will proceed to execution without further laboratory examination of an item defense lawyers say could prove the defendant’s innocence.
Robert Reed was convicted in the killing of Stacey Stites, who was found on her way to work in Bastrop, southeast of Austin. Prosecutors have refused requests to test a webbed belt recovered from the scene for biological material, and courts at both the state and federal level have upheld that refusal.
Reed’s legal team argues the belt could contain the killer’s genetic material—sweat or skin cells left where someone gripped the strap—and says the defense would cover the cost of testing. They have repeatedly pointed to what they describe as possible mishandling of evidence by authorities and a failure to apply Texas’s testing rules consistently.
Astrology update May 10: what every zodiac sign needs to know
Man shot outside Dunkin’ Donuts: dad of twins dies after late-night argument
State prosecutors contend the item is ineligible under Texas law because it may have been contaminated, a determination the courts have so far accepted. The dispute over availability of testing has produced sharply divided opinions on the Supreme Court: three liberal justices objected to the denial, while the majority refused to intervene.
Why this matters now: If testing is never performed, the identity of the person whose DNA may be on the belt could remain unknown even as Reed faces execution—raising questions about finality, fairness in post-conviction review, and the standards for granting modern forensic tests decades after a conviction.
- Case background: Stites, 19, was strangled in 1996; prosecutors also say she was raped. Reed maintains the relationship with Stites was consensual and has pointed to her fiancé, former officer Jimmy Fennell, as a possible killer.
- Evidence dispute: Defense wants DNA testing of the belt; state says potential contamination bars testing under Texas law.
- Court history: The Supreme Court in 2023 sent parts of Reed’s legal challenge back to lower courts over timing issues; lower courts later ruled against testing requests.
- Public attention: The case has drawn high-profile interest, including public statements of concern from celebrities and advocates for criminal justice review.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor—joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson—registered a strong dissent. They argued the refusal to allow examination of the belt was troubling given the “substantial possibility” that testing could show Reed is not the source of DNA on the strap and might identify another person.
Reed’s theory centers on Fennell, a former police officer who served prison time for sexual assault and has denied responsibility for Stites’s death. Reed’s lawyers say Fennell had motive and opportunity and that testing could help resolve competing narratives about the case.
The state appeals court relied on a narrow reading of the statute governing post-conviction DNA testing, excluding items that prosecutors say are contaminated. Defense attorneys counter that the state itself controlled the chain of custody and that evidence regularly admitted at trial despite possible contamination should not be off-limits for modern testing.
Potential consequences
Beyond the immediate fate of one prisoner, the dispute highlights a broader legal tension: how to balance rules meant to prevent endless litigation with the growing availability of forensic techniques that can conclusively identify or exclude suspects. Critics say current laws can leave factual questions unresolved, particularly in older cases where physical evidence still exists but was never subjected to contemporary analysis.
Legal experts say the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the appeal leaves Reed’s path narrow: he can seek relief through the remaining state and federal procedures, but the practical hurdle of convincing courts to allow testing remains high.
For readers, the case underscores two concrete stakes: the possibility of execution without modern forensic verification, and the policy choices states make about when and how to permit DNA testing long after convictions are final.
