Gutierrez v. Saenz (23-7809)

argument 23-7809

Gutierrez v. Saenz

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 34m 8 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 1 month ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the central standing issue raised in Gutierrez v. Saenz?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We will hear argument this morning in case twenty three seventy eight oh nine, Gutierrez versus signs.

0:05

Ms.

John G. Roberts 0:06

Fisher.

Diana Fisher 0:07

Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the court. This court recently held that Texas prisoner Rodney Reed has standing to challenge certain c certain procedures contained in the Texas Post Conviction Statute, known as Chapter 64, because a declaratory judgment that those procedures were unconstitutional would redress Mr. Reed's injury. By eliminating the prosecutor's reliance on those same procedures as a reason to deny testing. This court should hold that Mr. Gutierrez has standing for the same reason. The injury here is redressable because a declaratory judgment that finds certain procedures in Chapter sixty-four unconstitutional eliminates those statutory procedures as a lawful reason for respondents to forbid testing.

Diana Fisher 0:55

But even if this court should apply a more searching inquiry, Mr Gutierrez would still have standing. It is important to remember that the declaratory judgment at issue here does more than simply focus on the availability of DNA testing to show death ineligibility. It recognizes the inherent conflict between the Chapter sixty four statute and the habeas death ineligibility statute, and it requires that the procedures for obtaining DNA testing do not obstruct the right that Texas has given prisoners to seek habeas relief based on newly developed evidence. The CCA has never considered what procedures in Chapter sixty four are necessary to cure the constitutional infirmity found by the District Court.

Diana Fisher 1:42

Nor has it ever determined whether Mr Gutierrez would be able to access DNA evidence under a constitutional version of the statute. None of the reasons given by respondents for denying access to the evidence are independent of the due process violation found by the district court. They are part and parcel of decisions by the CCA made under an unconstitutional version of the statute, applying procedures found to be inadequate to vindicate the right at the heart of the declaratory judgment. The district court's declaratory judgment would eliminate all the reasons respondents rely on to deny testing and redress Mr. Gutierrez's injury. I welcome your questions.

Clarence Thomas 2:27

Uh didn't the uh CCA consider uh uh the testing uh after the declaratory judgment.

Diana Fisher 2:35

No, Your Honor. By the time Mr. Gutierrez brought his case to the CCA, the Fifth Circuit had already taken away the declaratory judgment, a point the CCA was very clear to make in their opinion. So the binding effect of that declaratory judgment wasn't present and the C CA did not apply it. So the C CA has actually never decided this case with the declaratory judgment in hand.

Clarence Thomas 2:56

So what else would you uh have to do? If this goes if you if the declaratory judgment is reinstated, what else would you have to do at the C C A level?

Diana Fisher 3:07

If we were to win the declaration, if the Fifth Circuit were to uphold the declaratory judgment, we would first go to respondents and see if they would turn over the DNA under a constitutional version of the statute. If not, we would file another Chapter 64 motion, which would have the binding rest juda acata effect by binding the parties to the constitutional version of the declaratory judgment, which requires adequate procedures to vindicate the the right in the habeas statute and we would ask the C C A to apply that restjudicata effect and we would ask for testing.

Clarence Thomas 3:40

But short of a court order it with the uh district attorney, isn't it uh the prosecutor, isn't that discretionary?

Diana Fisher 3:47

Uh without a court order it is discretionary, Your Honor. But as this court decided and read The the district attorneys simply um avering that they won't turn over DNA evidence isn't enough to defeat standing. The district attorney in Reed also made that argument and this court rejected that argument.

Elena Kagan 4:05

Can I get us back to the question presented?

Diana Fisher 4:08

Yes, Your Honor.

Elena Kagan 4:09

was does Article three standing require a parti I'm reading the question presented particularised determination of whether a specific state official will redress the plaintiff's injury by following a favourable declaratory judgment.