Looks like the “question first, warn late” strategy of interrogation is back with a vengeance
lizwebby.bsky.social
@lizwebby.bsky.social
232 followers 394 following 93 posts
Criminologist. Wrongful convictions scholar. Co-author of Exhausted: Appealing False Conviction from Behind Bars, NYU Press 2027. Associate prof @loyolachicago.bsky.social. Views my own.
![It is inexplicable why the Bastrop County District Attorney’s Office refuses to allow DNA testing of the belt that
was used to kill Stites, despite the very substantial possibility that such testing could exculpate Reed and identify
the real killer. It is also inexplicable why the courts below
did not proceed with more caution and carefully consider
each of Reed’s arguments, especially given that his claim
implicates the “constitutionally intolerable” possibility of
the “execution of a[n] . . . innocent person.” Herrera v. Collins, 506 U. S. 390, 419 (1993) (O’Connor, J., concurring).
The Court should vacate the Fifth Circuit’s judgment and
remand the case for the Fifth Circuit to address Reed’s argument in the first instance. Because the Court refuses to
do so, the State will likely execute Reed without the world
ever knowing whether Reed’s or Fennell’s DNA is on the
murder weapon, even though a simple DNA test could reveal that information. I respectfully dissent.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:6h7b2i6ttw3l4t7pvbvxdith/bafkreigzqf7es64cjqwwbmakuxshybiutbqvfgxt3swepisava3n3v4o74)
