Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Texas Death Row Inmate’s Appeal
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday opted not to consider a plea from a Texas death row inmate who argued his murder conviction should be overturned due to compromised DNA evidence presented at his trial.
Justices Reject Areli Escobar’s Petition
The high court declined to take up the appeal from Areli Escobar, convicted in the 2009 slaying of 17-year-old Bianca Maldonado.
Prosecutors Conceded Evidence Was Flawed, Sought Retrial
In a rare move, prosecutors had concurred that the forensic evidence was unreliable and a new trial was warranted.
Escobar Case Draws Parallels to Glossip Ruling
This case shares similarities with a recent Supreme Court decision favoring Oklahoma death row inmate Richard Glossip. In both instances, prosecutors recognized errors, yet state courts had previously ruled against the defendants. The Supreme Court ultimately vacated Glossip’s conviction.
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Under Scrutiny
The Escobar case brings attention to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Despite prosecutors acknowledging the evidence issues, the state court upheld Escobar’s conviction in January 2022.
Escobar’s Appeals History
Escobar initially appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which prompted the state court in January 2023 to re-examine the case.
However, in September 2023, the state court again ruled against Escobar, asserting that accurate evidence would not have likely altered the trial’s outcome.
Details of the Crime and Evidence
Escobar received a death sentence in 2011 for the murder of Maldonado, who was fatally stabbed and sexually assaulted at her Austin, Texas, apartment.
Prosecutors heavily relied on DNA analysis conducted by both the Austin Police Department’s in-house laboratory and a private facility.
The Austin Police Department laboratory was subsequently shut down after a state inquiry uncovered widespread errors and bias.
Legal Challenges Highlight Due Process Concerns
In 2020, a state judge determined that Escobar’s due process rights were violated due to “scientifically unreliable” evidence, advocating for a new trial.
Defense and Prosecution Arguments
Escobar’s legal team contended that the appeals court’s initial ruling disregarded the state’s admission of error. They described the subsequent ruling as even more concerning, as it seemingly dismissed the judgment of law enforcement who initially secured the conviction.
Travis County District Attorney Jose Garza supported Escobar in a court filing, stating that the appeals court’s decisions were “surprising” and lacked adequate consideration of the U.S. Supreme Court’s suggestion for further review.
“The state fulfilled its constitutional and statutory obligations to correct an injustice and rectify flawed evidence by admitting error,” Garza wrote. He further noted the appeals court “gave the state’s viewpoint no weight.”