So I want to talk a little bit,
just to start off pretty general
for our viewers, as a little bit
of a refresher, of course, Mr.
Reed has been accused of this c.
He was supposed to be executed,
I believe, back in 2019.
Talk to me a little bit about te
work when you all stepped in,
a little bit about the work
that's been done since then,
all the way until now.
Sure. So the Innocence Project
has actually been on Mr.
Reed's case for many years.
But in 2019, the Texas Court
of Criminal Appeals stayed Mr.
Reed's execution because there
was a tremendous amount.
Of new evidence that came
forward supporting his innocenc.
And so the court saved the
execution and ordered a hearing
which we had in the summer of 2,
where we believe we proved very
convincingly that he did not
commit this crime and that there
was really strong evidence that
the state actually knew at the
time of his trial showing that
he didn't commit this crime.
And so we are currently waitingr
the Texas Court of Criminal Apps
to rule on on that hearing and o
hopefully hand down relief to M.
Reed.
And I want to talk about some,
some moving in from that work
you know we come to yesterday
which was major developments and
updates and news in this case.
Tell me a little bit about what
came out of that SCOTUS ruling.
So the Supreme Court yesterday d
that Mister Reed filed his motion trying
to get access to DNA testing ti,
that he sought relief in federal courts
trying to challenge the state courts denial
of access to testing in a timely manner.
And it kept the courthouse door open for him.
So it means that his case is now going
to go back to the Fifth Circuit,
where we will have further litigation
and hopefully it gets us one stp
closer to getting DNA testing one day.
Absolutely. So I want to
talk a little bit also. So
sorry, wait, I'm skipping aroun.
So I want to talk for our viewe.
You know, when you have a SCOTUS
ruling like this saying that he,
he did actually meet, you know,
I know it's the statute of limitations,
things like that.
So that DNA post conviction,
DNA testing will be huge.
And you just kind of talked about next steps.
So go ahead.
I know it's going to be repetit,
but kind of tell me that again,
you know, essentially.
OK.
This ruling came down.
Does it just come down to DA
Gertz's office or does it come
down to the Fifth Circuit like
is is a new trial ex what you
want or what what would be next?
So what's next for the DNA litigation
is that we would go back to the
Fifth Circuit to have hopefully
further arguments about the mers
about whether he actually gets.
Access to DNA testing.
He's been asking for years from
the courts to get access to DNA
testing on a number of items
recovered from the crime scene,
most importantly, the murder we,
which was found near the victim's body,
her belt.
And so hopefully this gets us cr
to getting that testing to happ.
You know, separately,
we have litigation in front of e
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
that goes to his actual innocen.
And, you know,
we're waiting on both of these things.
So there's 22 tracks of
litigation happening right now.
Absolutely. So the SCOTUS rulin,
is not necessarily binding in ts
of he absolutely will get it,
but it's it's really that huge t
step forward because I mean it's
the highest court of the land. t
helps open the doors so that hen
continue to fight to get accesso
DNA testing and it hopefully hes
provide better access to other
people in similar circumstancesd
that was one of my questions to.
I'm going to go ahead and skip to that
one knowing that like I just said the
highest court of the land has r.
Aside from three, but has ruled
to allow this and recommend thi.
What kind of precedent does that
set for others that feel that
they have been wrongly convicte,
especially black men?
What the ruling means is that there's
much more clarity now on the ability for
somebody who has sought DNA testing in
state court and are being denied and they
believe they're being denied unfairly,
you know, with without due procs
to seek relief in federal court.
And the ruling yesterday makes
clear that that is a an Ave.
that people can pursue.
And it also makes very clear
the timing of that,
that you need to exhaust all
of your remedies in state court
before going to federal court.
And in addition, so just a
couple more in that DNA testing.
I think one of the big things is
of course many people wonder why
he would want that and it yes,
it's for so he can prove
his innocence as he says.
But the big part of that is he's always
maintained that it was the victim's fiance.
So you all feel that this DNA testing
would then open that door to rey
get that definitive answer or hp
work towards those answers, rig.
That's right. You know if if the
is testing on the the belts and
other items recovered from the e
scene that were clearly handledy
the person who committed this c,
you know as part of committing the crime,
that's going to be very helpfuln
terms of showing who actually ws
the person who did this to mist.
Do you have any concerns of tha,
that those pieces of evidence
have some degrading now that tht
they weren't handled properly?
Is that another issue that
you might run into with this?
You know, the Innocence Project works almost
entirely on cases that are decades old,
20-30 years, sometimes even mor.
And in every case that we take ,
you know, there's always a
recognition that these are old items,
that they have been stored for a long time.
And the thing with DNA testing s
you don't know until you do the
testing what it's going to lead.
And we've been really pleasantly
surprised in some cases how much
DNA remains many years later.
And that's what's been so frustrating for Mr.
Reed and his legal team,
is we just want to get to the
truth and get to the testing. Ad
that kind of leads to the question of you
all feel that this is truly just his right.
So this technology exists and nw
you have SCOTUS ruling. I mean .
It's more of like for people that may
have doubts against his innocen.
It's sort of for y'all it can't hurt, right?
It it's a simple let's use the technology.
That's right. I mean,
post conviction DNA testing stas
exist because there's a recognin
that our system gets things wrog
sometimes and there's a recognin
that advances in science shoulde
used to help write those wrongs.
So all we're asking for is what
the Texas State legislature has
handed down as a right to get
access to this kind of testing.
And my last question is,
of course the Bashar County DA s
has refused this test for the D.
And I know you kind of talked about this,
but can you just explain?
For people like me,
even that like kind of what the
holdup was with this, I know th.
So explaining kind of the statu.
And did they say that he missed his deadline?
Can you kind of explain that?
It's a good question and it's hard to
answer directly because it seems like
there's just a real resistance to get to
the truth here as opposed to an actual
justified reason not to do the testing.
So our hope is that this rulings
us a little bit closer to the mt
that Mister Reed's been waiting,
for well over a decade.
I guess my question is kind
of what was their claim?
So I get what you're saying,
but their claim was that
he was missing deadlines,
right? You know, I I think their claim,
they've had a number of claims r
the years for the reasons why he
shouldn't get access to testing.
You know, one of them had to do
with the timeliness of his requ,
But that's been made very clear
by the text, by the the.
Excuse me, rephrase that.
The state has had a number of reasons over
the years why they have opposed DNA testing,
one of which had to do with the timing of Mr.
Reid's request.
And thankfully the US Supreme Court's
ruling yesterday makes clear the
is absolutely timely in his req.
And the final wrap with it.
I know I always lie and
say it's my last question,
but good thing we're making good timing.
The final wrap just to kind of
bring it all back together is of
course should this DNA be tested
and should there be enough.
I know you got to go back to th,
this circuit is truly one of the
end goals here is to let him haa
new trial and I know the all whe
jury was was something that wasa
huge part of that case as well.
So that really is the end goal,
right, to then have enough to say hey
what's we need another trial, r.
Absolutely. You know,
our our position is that he is
entitled to have a fair trial ba
jury of his peers where the stae
has to put forward evidence that
it knows exists that supports hs
innocence and where we'd be ablo
put forward many witnesses who e
come forward that directly support Mr.
Reed's defense.
And so if we get to that moment,
we would be very grateful for i.