No. 17-1093 I
N
T
HE
Supreme ourt of the United States
_________________________ RODNEY REED,
Petitioner
, vs. THE STATE OF TEXAS
Respondent
. _________________________ On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals _________________________
R
ESPONDENT
’
S
B
RIEF IN
O
PPOSITION
_________________________ B
RYAN
G
OERTZ
Criminal District Attorney Bastrop County, Texas M
ATTHEW
O
TTOWAY
Assistant Attorney General/ Assistant District Attorney
Counsel of Record
P.O. Box 12548 Austin, Texas 78711 (512) 936-1400
matthew.ottoway@oag.texas.gov Counsel for Respondent
i
C
APITAL
C
ASE
Q
UESTIONS
P
RESENTED
1. Whether jurisdiction exists for pure state-law procedural questions, and where the purportedly constitutional issues were not passed upon below but raised for the first time in a discretionary, post-judgment motion being directly appealed to this Court. 2. Whether fact-bound questions, not properly raised below, regarding Texas’s postconviction DNA testing scheme—a scheme in accord with many other states and the Court’s relevant precedent—warrant review.
ii
T
ABLE OF
C
ONTENTS
Q
UESTIONS
P
RESENTED
....................................................
I
T
ABLE OF
C
ONTENTS
.......................................................
II
I
NDEX OF
A
UTHORITIES
..................................................
IV
B
RIEF IN
O
PPOSITION
........................................................1
S
TATEMENT OF THE
C
ASE
.................................................2
I.
T
HE
C
APITAL
M
URDER
T
RIAL
.................................2
II.
T
HE
S
TATE
’
S
P
UNISHMENT
C
ASE
...........................7
III.
R
EED
’
S
P
OSTCONVICTION
P
ROCEEDINGS
. ............. 10
R
EASONS
T
O
D
ENY THE
P
ETITION
................................... 16
I.
T
HE
I
SSUES
D
ECIDED
B
ELOW
A
RE
S
TATE
-L
AW
M
ATTERS OVER
W
HICH
T
HIS
C
OURT
H
AS
N
O
J
URISDICTION
....................................................... 16
II.
T
HIS
C
OURT
’
S
P
RECEDENT
S
HOWS
D
ENIAL
I
S
A
PPROPRIATE
H
ERE
............................................. 17
III.
E
VEN
I
F THE
C
OURT
P
OSSESSES
J
URISDICTION
,
AND
E
VEN
I
F THE
I
SSUES
P
RESENTED
H
AD
B
EEN
P
ROPERLY
R
AISED AND
P
ASSED
U
PON
,
R
EED
S
TILL
F
AILS TO
D
EMONSTRATE A
C
ONSTITUTIONAL
V
IOLATION
. .......................................................... 20
A.
R
EED FAILS TO PROVE THAT A CHAIN
-
OF
-
CUSTODY REQUIREMENT VIOLATES DUE PROCESS
............................................. 20
B.
R
EED FAILS TO PROVE THAT IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO IMPOSE A DILIGENCE REQUIREMENT
.......................... 27