Due Process and DNA Testing: Supreme Court Affirms Rights of Death Row Inmates

The U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Ruben Gutierrez v. Luis Saenz et al. (2025) brings critical clarity to the constitutional rights of death-row inmates seeking access to DNA testing under Texas’s postconviction procedures.

What's The Matter?

For nearly 15 years, Gutierrez has pursued DNA testing of crime scene evidence that he claims would prove his innocence by showing he was not present at the murder scene, despite his conviction for capital murder in the killing of Escolastica Harrison.

At issue was whether Gutierrez could challenge Texas’s restrictive approach under Article 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure that limits access to DNA testing in postconviction cases, particularly denying testing when the evidence would not directly prove innocence of the underlying crime but might only affect punishment eligibility.

Art. 64.01. MOTION."A convicted person may submit to the convicting court a motion for forensic DNA testing of evidence that has a reasonable likelihood of containing biological material. The motion must be accompanied by an affidavit, sworn to by the convicted person, containing statements of fact in support of the motion."

Art. 64.03. REQUIREMENTS; TESTING. "A convicting court may order forensic DNA testing only if:

(1) the court finds that:

(A) the evidence:

(i) still exists and is in a condition making DNA testing possible; and

(ii) has been subjected to a chain of custody sufficient to establish that it has not been substituted, tampered with, replaced, or altered in any material respect;

(B) there is a reasonable likelihood that the evidence contains biological material suitable for DNA testing; and

(C) identity was or is an issue in the case; and

(2) the convicted person establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that:

(A) the person would not have been convicted if exculpatory results had been obtained through DNA testing; and

(B) the request for the proposed DNA testing is not made to unreasonably delay the execution of sentence or administration of justice.

What Court's Said?

Texas courts had repeatedly denied Gutierrez’s motions, holding that favorable DNA evidence would not exonerate him because he could still be held responsible as a party to the crime under Texas law and remain eligible for the death penalty if it was shown he anticipated a death occurring.

Frustrated, Gutierrez brought suit under 42 U.S.C. §1983, arguing that Texas’s procedural barriers to DNA testing violated his due process rights.

The District Court agreed to a limited extent, issuing a declaratory judgment that Article 64 is unconstitutional insofar as it forbids DNA testing aimed only at disproving death penalty eligibility.

However, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, ruling that Gutierrez lacked standing because the declaratory relief would likely not cause the prosecutor to permit the testing given the additional independent state-law reasons supporting denial.

The Supreme Court reversed, firmly grounding Gutierrez’s standing in precedent from Reed v. Goertz (2023) and Skinner v. Switzer (2011). The Court recognized that convicted individuals have a liberty interest under the Due Process Clause in demonstrating innocence through postconviction procedures created by the state.

Moreover, a federal court’s declaration that Texas’s procedures are unconstitutional would remove a legal barrier used to deny DNA testing and thus redress the injury.

The Court rejected the Fifth Circuit’s focus on speculation about whether the prosecutor would ultimately allow testing despite a favorable ruling, emphasizing that a procedural due process claim is not moot simply because a defendant declares refusal to change course.

Importantly, the Court remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this standing determination but did not rule on the broader constitutional or factual issues underlying DNA testing eligibility.

The decision signals that prisoners challenging capital sentences cannot be denied meaningful postconviction procedures arbitrarily or under overly restrictive statutory constructions.

It reinforces that states creating postconviction rights must afford effective access to evidence testing necessary to vindicate those rights, especially where DNA evidence may bear on guilt or punishment.

The dissent, however, warned that the ruling risks prolonging litigation and delaying finality in capital cases, emphasizing that Texas’s current rules reflect a reasonable balance and that reopening evidence testing nearly 30 years post-conviction threatens justice for victims and society’s interest in timely enforcement. They questioned the constitutional basis for asserting a “liberty interest” in state-created postconviction procedures at all.

Overall, Gutierrez v. Saenz marks a significant development in the intersection of criminal justice, constitutional law, and forensic science, underscoring the judiciary’s role in safeguarding rights to prove innocence while balancing finality and procedural fairness in death penalty cases.

Citation: Gutierrez v. Saenz et al., No. 23-7809, decided June 26, 2025

Additional information:

CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

TITLE 1. CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

CHAPTER 64. MOTION FOR FORENSIC DNA TESTING

Art. 64.01. MOTION. (a) In this section, "biological material":

(1) means an item that is in possession of the state and that contains blood, semen, hair, saliva, skin tissue or cells, fingernail scrapings, bone, bodily fluids, or other identifiable biological evidence that may be suitable for forensic DNA testing; and

(2) includes the contents of a sexual assault evidence collection kit.

(a-1) A convicted person may submit to the convicting court a motion for forensic DNA testing of evidence that has a reasonable likelihood of containing biological material. The motion must be accompanied by an affidavit, sworn to by the convicted person, containing statements of fact in support of the motion.

(b) The motion may request forensic DNA testing only of evidence described by Subsection (a-1) that was secured in relation to the offense that is the basis of the challenged conviction and was in the possession of the state during the trial of the offense, but:

(1) was not previously subjected to DNA testing; or

(2) although previously subjected to DNA testing:

(A) can be subjected to testing with newer testing techniques that provide a reasonable likelihood of results that are more accurate and probative than the results of the previous test; or

(B) was tested:

(i) at a laboratory that ceased conducting DNA testing after an audit by the Texas Forensic Science Commission revealed the laboratory engaged in faulty testing practices; and

(ii) during the period identified in the audit as involving faulty testing practices.

(c) A convicted person is entitled to counsel during a proceeding under this chapter. The convicting court shall appoint counsel for the convicted person if the person informs the court that the person wishes to submit a motion under this chapter, the court finds reasonable grounds for a motion to be filed, and the court determines that the person is indigent. Counsel must be appointed under this subsection not later than the 45th day after the date the court finds reasonable grounds or the date the court determines that the person is indigent, whichever is later. Compensation of counsel is provided in the same manner as is required by:

(1) Article 11.071 for the representation of a petitioner convicted of a capital felony; and

(2) Chapter 26 for the representation in a habeas corpus hearing of an indigent defendant convicted of a felony other than a capital felony.

Art. 64.011. GUARDIANS AND OTHER REPRESENTATIVES. (a) In this chapter, "guardian of a convicted person" means a person who is the legal guardian of the convicted person, whether the legal relationship between the guardian and convicted person exists because of the age of the convicted person or because of the physical or mental incompetency of the convicted person.

(b) A guardian of a convicted person may submit motions for the convicted person under this chapter and is entitled to counsel otherwise provided to a convicted person under this chapter.

Added by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 13, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.

Art. 64.02. NOTICE TO STATE; RESPONSE. (a) On receipt of the motion, the convicting court shall:

(1) provide the attorney representing the state with a copy of the motion; and

(2) require the attorney representing the state to take one of the following actions in response to the motion not later than the 60th day after the date the motion is served on the attorney representing the state:

(A) deliver the evidence to the court, along with a description of the condition of the evidence; or

(B) explain in writing to the court why the state cannot deliver the evidence to the court.

(b) The convicting court may proceed under Article 64.03 after the response period described by Subsection (a)(2) has expired, regardless of whether the attorney representing the state submitted a response under that subsection.

Art. 64.03. REQUIREMENTS; TESTING. (a) A convicting court may order forensic DNA testing under this chapter only if:

(1) the court finds that:

(A) the evidence:

(i) still exists and is in a condition making DNA testing possible; and

(ii) has been subjected to a chain of custody sufficient to establish that it has not been substituted, tampered with, replaced, or altered in any material respect;

(B) there is a reasonable likelihood that the evidence contains biological material suitable for DNA testing; and

(C) identity was or is an issue in the case; and

(2) the convicted person establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that:

(A) the person would not have been convicted if exculpatory results had been obtained through DNA testing; and

(B) the request for the proposed DNA testing is not made to unreasonably delay the execution of sentence or administration of justice.

(b) A convicted person who pleaded guilty or nolo contendere or, whether before or after conviction, made a confession or similar admission in the case may submit a motion under this chapter, and the convicting court is prohibited from finding that identity was not an issue in the case solely on the basis of that plea, confession, or admission, as applicable.

(b-1) Notwithstanding Subsection (c), a convicting court shall order that the requested DNA testing be done with respect to evidence described by Article 64.01(b)(2)(B) if the court finds in the affirmative the issues listed in Subsection (a)(1), regardless of whether the convicted person meets the requirements of Subsection (a)(2). The court may order the test to be conducted by any laboratory that the court may order to conduct a test under Subsection (c).

(c) If the convicting court finds in the affirmative the issues listed in Subsection (a)(1) and the convicted person meets the requirements of Subsection (a)(2), the court shall order that the requested forensic DNA testing be conducted. The court may order the test to be conducted by:

(1) the Department of Public Safety;

(2) a laboratory operating under a contract with the department; or

(3) on the request of the convicted person, another laboratory if that laboratory is accredited under Article 38.01.

(d) If the convicting court orders that the forensic DNA testing be conducted by a laboratory other than a Department of Public Safety laboratory or a laboratory under contract with the department, the State of Texas is not liable for the cost of testing under this subsection unless good cause for payment of that cost has been shown. A political subdivision of the state is not liable for the cost of testing under this subsection, regardless of whether good cause for payment of that cost has been shown. If the court orders that the testing be conducted by a laboratory described by this subsection, the court shall include in the order requirements that:

(1) the DNA testing be conducted in a timely and efficient manner under reasonable conditions designed to protect the integrity of the evidence and the testing process;

(2) the DNA testing employ a scientific method sufficiently reliable and relevant to be admissible under Rule 702, Texas Rules of Evidence; and

(3) on completion of the DNA testing, the results of the testing and all data related to the testing required for an evaluation of the test results be immediately filed with the court and copies of the results and data be served on the convicted person and the attorney representing the state.

(e) The convicting court, not later than the 30th day after the conclusion of a proceeding under this chapter, shall forward the results to the Department of Public Safety

Art. 64.035. UNIDENTIFIED DNA PROFILES. If an analyzed sample meets the applicable requirements of state or federal submission policies, on completion of the testing under Article 64.03, the convicting court shall order any unidentified DNA profile to be compared with the DNA profiles in:

(1) the DNA database established by the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and

(2) the DNA database maintained by the Department of Public Safety under Subchapter G, Chapter 411, Government Code.

Art. 64.04. FINDING. After examining the results of testing under Article 64.03 and any comparison of a DNA profile under Article 64.035, the convicting court shall hold a hearing and make a finding as to whether, had the results been available during the trial of the offense, it is reasonably probable that the person would not have been convicted.

Art. 64.05. APPEALS. An appeal under this chapter is to a court of appeals in the same manner as an appeal of any other criminal matter, except that if the convicted person was convicted in a capital case and was sentenced to death, the appeal is a direct appeal to the court of criminal appeals.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this blog are for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. Readers are advised to consult a qualified legal professional for specific guidance on their individual circumstances.