Background
Ricky Lee Pady was convicted in 2007 of murdering Denise Ortman and sentenced to fifty years in prison. In 2025, he sought post-conviction retesting of DNA evidence recovered from Ortman’s vehicle and the crime scene, requesting methods including STR or mini-STR, Y-STR, and mitochondrial DNA testing.
The evidence had previously undergone PCR-based analysis and STR testing. The results associated certain samples with Ortman, Pady, or another suspect, Rex Frautschi. Pady questioned which reference sample the laboratory had used for him and argued that retesting might identify Frautschi as a contributor. The trial court denied the motion after finding no evidence that advances in DNA testing had rendered the earlier results obsolete or questionable.
The Court’s Holding
The Thirteenth Court of Appeals affirmed. Under Article 64.01(b)(2) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, a person seeking to retest previously tested evidence must first show that newer techniques offer a reasonable likelihood of producing results more accurate and probative than the earlier test. Pady made no such showing, and his attorney conceded that the techniques previously used appeared to be the same kinds used today. The record also showed that the laboratory had already used STR testing, one of the methods Pady requested.
Because Pady did not satisfy Article 64.01’s threshold requirement, he could not invoke Article 64.03’s assumption that testing would produce favorable results. The court further explained that presumed “exculpatory results” mean results excluding the convicted person as the material’s donor, not a presumption that the laboratory confused Pady’s DNA with Frautschi’s. Pady also failed to explain how favorable retesting results would have changed the trial’s outcome rather than merely introducing additional uncertainty.
Key Takeaways
- A request to retest previously tested evidence requires proof that newer techniques are reasonably likely to produce more accurate and probative results.
- The statutory assumption of favorable DNA results applies only after the applicant satisfies Article 64.01’s threshold requirements.
- Courts do not presume that a forensic laboratory confused suspects’ DNA samples, and an applicant must connect presumed favorable results to a probable acquittal.
Why It Matters
The decision emphasizes the sequential nature of Texas’s post-conviction DNA-testing framework. A convicted person cannot rely on the later-stage assumption of favorable results without first establishing a qualifying basis to retest evidence under Article 64.01.
For practitioners, merely questioning an older laboratory report or requesting additional testing methods is insufficient. The motion must identify evidence supporting the comparative superiority of newer testing and explain how presumed exculpatory results would probably have prevented the conviction.