One evening in July 1985, Carolyn Muncey disappeared from her Tennessee home. Within 24 hours, local authorities found the mother of two dead, under a pile of leaves in a ravine 100 yards from her house.

Once officials began to investigate the homicide, evidence pointed towards Muncey's neighbor Paul House, a convicted sex offender. Authorities thought they had a clear case when they brought House to trial – Muncey's blood was found on House's jeans, House's semen was found on her undergarments, and neighbors said House was near the crime scene around the time of the murder. The jury found House guilty – and sentenced him to death.

Now, after two decades, the Supreme Court is reviewing House's case – and conviction – based on new DNA evidence which his attorney believes clearly exonerates the death row inmate. House vs. Bell will appear before the court in November, in a case that will set the precedent for newly discovered evidence, and address the newest DNA technologies that exonerate the plaintiff.

Death penalty rights organizations say that this case is needed to show how outdated the legal processes for death row inmates are, especially compared to the progress science has made in the last decade.

“We need to bring the law up to science,” says Richard Dieter, Executive Director of the Death Penalty Information Center. “Science has evolved, and the law has yet to address that evolution.”

Indeed, the case of House vs. Bell is particularly important in light of the standards it will set – and not just for new evidence.

DNA and Innocence

“We're in an era of DNA,” Dieter says. “There is evidence now that is much more powerful than anything that existed at trial. The court has to answer the question – ‘What do you do in an appeals court when someone has evidence of innocence – and how much evidence do they need?'”

The question of how much evidence is needed for appeal is crucial for inmates with habeas corpus cases. Habeas corpus requires that a prisoner be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not they are being imprisoned lawfully – but the inmate is only eligible for habeas corpus if they meet certain requirements. Usually, courts require that an inmate engaged in habeas corpus proceedings prove that there is a constitutional issue underlying their claims of innocence.

The Supreme Court has heard two high-profile cases dealing with habeas corpus procedures and new evidence. In 1993, the court heard the case of Herrera vs. Collins, and rejected the innocence claims of Herrera, a death row inmate claiming he was wrongly imprisoned. However, the Supreme Court maintained that if an inmate could prove their “actual innocence” it would be unconstitutional to put them to death.

“If someone has new evidence, it could be that's all they have. The problem Herrera faced in Herrera vs. Collins was that he wasn't claiming any constitutional problem with this case,” Dieter says. “His ultimate claim was that he was innocent – typically courts want a constitutional issue other than innocence.”

In the case of Schlup vs. Delo, in 1995, the Supreme Court once again faced the question of new evidence. This time, a different standard was set. The Court essentially created a ‘gateway' for inmates going through habeas corpus proceedings. This ‘gateway' required that an inmate address every piece of evidence used to convict them at their original trial – including witness and expert testimony to prove “actual innocence”.

“Mere assertions of innocence are not going to get you a hearing, or even a retrial,” Dieter says. “The court has to set this standard to show exactly how much doubt you have to cast on your case to prove your innocence.”

But for cases like House vs. Bell, addressing ancient witness and expert testimony is difficult. House has maintained his innocence since the start of his trial in 1985, and he claims that the testimony of his neighbors is pure fabrication. So while the Schlup ‘gateway' seemed to set sufficient standard, lower courts struggled when new DNA evidence came forward. Inmates could prove their DNA was tested improperly, using old methods, but they still had to address every testimony against them.

Actual Evidence and DNA

The concept of “actual innocence” becomes more complicated once the timeline of scientific progress is taken into account. “Actual innocence” is the term used by the Supreme Court to describe the difference between an inmate who simply claims innocence and one who has substantial evidence to back their claims of evidence up in court.

According to the American Bar Association (ABA), new DNA technologies began to conflict with court precedents of “actual innocence” shortly after the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Schlup vs. Delo.

The ABA cited three distinct problems in the court system regarding DNA and forensic evidence in their ‘Crime Laboratories and Forensic Evidence' report. The ABA stated that first, due to the advent of more accurate DNA testing, forensic science was revolutionized. Secondly, the ABA maintained that the Court's rulings had to change according to the admissibility of evidence based on forensic science. Thirdly, the ABA said that forensic evidence was being criticized because of forensic evidence cases where authorities mishandled or abused the evidence in order to get a certain ruling.

The ABA maintains that the punishment of those who are actually innocent impairs the administration of justice. Additionally, Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor agreed in her 2001 Address to Minnesota Women Lawyers Association, saying that “the system may well be allowing some innocent defendants to be executed” – and for Dieter, that's exactly the problem.

“These are death row inmates. If they lose, at some point, they will be executed,” Dieter points out. “It's so important that these cases are reviewed before it gets to that point. If there is more evidence now than there was at trial, all these inmates have to do is prove a reasonable doubt.”

The Future of the Death Penalty

Pro-death penalty advocacy groups generally feel that the death penalty works. Although several of these groups were contacted, none returned phone calls for this article. However, there are many different polls and papers detailing the thought process behind those who believe in the death penalty.

Organizations like www.prodeathpenalty.com maintain that the importance of innocent people being executed is minimal compared to the deterrent effect offered by the death penalty. These groups have yet to address the issues specific to the case of House vs. Bell, nor have they addressed the habeas procedures required of inmates.

But some organizations, including the Death Penalty Information Center, believe that the case of House vs. Bell will not only set a standard – it will also be a step towards eliminating the death penalty.

“Death sentences have been coming down,” Dieter maintains. “Executions are coming down. Nobody likes these doubts that they are executing the wrong person. The death penalty, in a sense, is in the balance here. Can we convince the population that the death penalty is 100% reliable? I don't know. The death penalty cannot survive with this kind of accuracy. Sometimes, the state gets it wrong. Sometimes, we execute the wrong person. How important is one life? One innocent person? How many hearings are worth one innocent life?”