Justice Alito's Stance on Death Penalty: A Critical Look

Ruben Gutierrez's Plea for Justice

Ruben Gutierrez has been on death row for over two decades, convicted for a murder he admits he helped plan but insists he didn't commit. The state argues that his involvement in the robbery makes him equally responsible for the murder, regardless of who actually killed the victim, Escolastica Harrison.

The Fight for DNA Testing

Gutierrez has been fighting for DNA testing of evidence from the crime scene. He believes it could prove he wasn't present when Harrison was killed. Texas, however, refuses. The state's law says that even if DNA proves Gutierrez wasn't the killer, it wouldn't change his death sentence. This is because Texas holds all participants in a felony that results in murder equally responsible.

Supreme Court Intervention

The Supreme Court recently intervened. In a 6-3 decision, it ruled that Gutierrez has the right to pursue his claim for DNA testing. The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, stated that the potential impact of the DNA evidence is not too speculative. If the evidence shows someone else killed Harrison, it could challenge the findings that made Gutierrez eligible for the death penalty.

Dissenting Opinion

However, Justice Samuel Alito dissented. He argued that Gutierrez's claim should have been dismissed. Alito believes that because Texas law allows accomplice liability in capital cases, it doesn't matter who the actual killer is. DNA testing that might identify someone else wouldn't change the outcome, in his view.

The Trouble with the Dissent

This dissent is troubling. It suggests that the legality of the death penalty depends not on the facts of the case, but on how well the prosecution presents it. It's a philosophy that prioritizes legal procedures over the truth. It's a stance that's not just harsh on Gutierrez, but on the very idea that new facts should have power.

The Importance of Truth

The Supreme Court's decision doesn't order DNA testing or resolve the constitutional claim. But it does assert that the possibility of truth still has standing. It's a reminder that facts still matter, even in death penalty cases. Gutierrez's case now returns to the lower courts, where the evidence remains untested and the verdict intact. But the court's decision is a step towards ensuring that the law doesn't forget the importance of truth.