The U.S. Supreme has expanded the ability of death row inmates to challenge their convictions in federal court based on DNA evidence produced long after their trials. The ruling marks the first time that the Justices have considered the new evidentiary technology of DNA evidence when re-examining a death sentence. In its 5-3 decision, the Court held that new evidence, including DNA test results, raised sufficient doubt to merit a new hearing in federal court for Tennessee death row inmate Paul House, who was sentenced to death two decades ago for the rape and murder of his neighbor.

Writing for the majority in House v. Bell, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy noted, “Although the issue is close, we conclude that this is the rare case where - had the jury heard all the conflicting testimony - it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror viewing the record as a whole would lack reasonable doubt.” Justice Kennedy identified three aspects of House’s case that, when considered as a whole, qualified him to gain access to a habeas corpus hearing in federal court. The first piece of new evidence was recent DNA test results finding that House was not the source of semen found in the murder victim, but that the source was instead the victims’ husband. Second, new statements from three witnesses linked the victims’ husband to the crime. Lastly, recent tests have cast doubt on the reliability of blood evidence presented at House’s trial. Although prosecutors told jurors that the victims’ blood had been found on House’s blue jeans, new evidence has raised the prospect that the blood spattered on House’s jeans came from a vial of the victims’ blood taken during an autopsy.

Justice Kennedy said that “all the evidence, old and new, incriminating and exculpatory” must be taken into account. He noted that when an inmate comes to federal court with evidence of innocence, “the court’s function is not to make an independent factual determination about what likely occurred, but rather to assess the likely impact of the evidence on reasonable jurors.”

(Associated Press, June 12, 2006, and New York Times, June 13, 2006) See Supreme Court and Innocence.