Reed, Rodney, WR-50,961-07

Background

Applicant Rodney Reed, a death-row inmate, filed a successive habeas application asserting actual innocence and constitutional violations based on new forensic opinions, recantations/clarifications by State experts, and newly discovered witness affidavits.
Key forensic developments: retired NYPD Det. Sgt. Kevin Gannon identified decomposition and lividity signs suggesting an earlier time of death and post-mortem movement of the body; independent pathologists (Spitz, Baden, Riddick) agree the State’s timeline/theories are medically unsupportable.
Two State experts (Dr. Bayardo and Meghan Clement) now provided statements altering or qualifying trial testimony about time of death, presence/age of semen, and anal injury; the applicant contends those recantations render prior testimony false or misleading.
New witness affidavits (co-workers and a cousin of the victim) corroborate a consensual relationship between Reed and Stacey Stites, undermining the State’s theory that Reed abducted and murdered her in the early-morning hours.
Procedural posture: Reed asks the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to reject the State’s motion to dismiss the application as abusive, arguing his claims fit within Article 11.071 §5(a)(1) (new law/newly available evidence) and §5(a)(2) (innocence gateway), and also rely on Article 11.073 (new science) and Ex parte Chabot (false testimony doctrine).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Reed)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held / Relief Sought
Whether Elizondo-type actual-innocence claims fit Article 11.071 §5(a)(2)	Elizondo’s due-process standard parallels §5(a)(2)’s "no rational juror" test, so Elizondo claims satisfy the statutory innocence gateway	§5(a)(2) should not be read to cover Elizondo claims because Elizondo isn’t a trial-error constitutional claim	Court urged to accept that Elizondo claims are reviewable under §5(a)(2) (relief sought: remand for evidentiary hearing)
Whether §5(a)(2) requires new evidence to have been factually unavailable with due diligence	§5(a)(2) codifies Schlup and requires only that reliable new evidence was not presented at trial; no separate factual-unavailability/diligence showing is required	State argues an implied diligence/factual-unavailability requirement (citing dicta) should bar §5(a)(2) review	Court urged to reject adding a diligence requirement to §5(a)(2) and to consider Reed’s new evidence under the innocence gateway
Proper procedural vehicle for Article 11.073 (new science) claims	Article 11.073 claims meet §5(a)(1) legal/factual unavailability and §5(a)(2) innocence gateway standards because 11.073 requires new-science proof and a showing by preponderance that applicant would not be convicted	State resists, implying procedural disallowance or that evidence is not new/scientific enough	Court urged to treat 11.073 claims as meeting §5(a)(1)/(a)(2) standards and grant review/remand
Whether false or misleading testimony by State experts (Bayardo, Clement, Blakley, Smithey) violates due process	Trial expert testimony and prosecutor argument gave false or misleading impressions (on time of death, post-coital interval, anal injury, and future dangerousness); new recantations and expert affidavits meet Ex parte Chabot/Chavez/Weinstein standards for §5(a)(1) review	State contends the trial testimony was technically accurate, admissible, or at most a Rule 702/admissibility issue, not a due-process error; moves to dismiss as abusive	Reed seeks evidentiary hearing and reversal; asks Court to hold the expert testimony violated due process and warrants relief (remand requested)

Key Cases Cited

Ex parte Elizondo, 947 S.W.2d 202 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (Due Process actual-innocence standard: clear and convincing evidence that no rational juror would convict)
Ex parte Reed, 271 S.W.3d 698 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (discussing §5(a)(2) codification of Schlup and prior consideration of Reed’s claims)
Ex parte Chavez, 371 S.W.3d 200 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (recognizing unknowing use of false testimony as a basis for habeas review)
Ex parte Chabot, 300 S.W.3d 768 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (false testimony due-process framework)
Ex parte Ghahremani, 332 S.W.3d 470 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (even technically correct testimony can violate due process if it gives a false impression)
Ex parte Weinstein, 421 S.W.3d 656 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (false testimony violates due process when reasonably likely to influence jury)
House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518 (U.S. 2006) (Schlup standard summarized: new evidence must raise sufficient doubt that any reasonable juror would have reasonable doubt)
Coble v. State, 330 S.W.3d 253 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (trial court as gatekeeper under Rule 702; reliability of expert testimony)
Ex parte Henderson, 384 S.W.3d 833 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (addressing unreliable expert evidence in habeas context)
Chevron Corp. v. Redmon, 745 S.W.2d 314 (Tex. 1987) (statutory construction: avoid readings that render terms meaningless)