"Texas death row inmate Rigoberto Avila
will get another chance to prove to an El Paso court what he’s been
saying since 2000: that he did not kill the 19-month-old son of his
girlfriend and that the child’s death was a tragic accident. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals agreed this week that scientific
developments Avila presented would contradict evidence El Paso County
prosecutors used to obtain his conviction. Nearly three years after
Avila requested a ruling, the state’s top criminal court has ordered
a lower court to review scientific evidence that the inmate says shows
he is innocent in the death of baby Nicholas Macias. Avila’s lawyers said they were “tremendously pleased” with the decision. “We remain confident that a full examination of the case will
ultimately spare an innocent man from execution,” lawyers Robert Owen
and Cathryn Crawford said in an emailed statement. In 2001, El Paso County prosecutors argued that Avila became jealous
while babysitting Nicholas and his older brother, and stomped the baby
to death. Avila, who was 28 and a Navy veteran with no criminal history,
adamantly denied he hurt the child. He said he came into the room to
find the child not breathing after the older brother — a 4-year-old
obsessed with TV wrestling — informed Avila he had held his hand over
the baby’s mouth. But at the trial, prosecutors presented a doctor who contended that
the 4-year-old could not have exacted such a toll unless he fell on the
baby from a great height. The jury sentenced Avila to death. In 2013, new lawyers for Avila asked scientists to review the
evidence in his case. The scientists, using new developments in
biomechanical science, concluded that a child falling from no more than
the height of a bed onto an infant could have fatal consequences."
http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2016/03/court-gives-death-row-inmate-who-claims-innocence-chance-to-prove-it-with-new-science.html/
See related Grits for Breakfast post at the link below; "The indefatigable Brandi Grissom
reported in the Dallas News
this week (March 10) that the CCA agreed to let a case go forward which
challenges "shaken baby syndrome" type evidence and may be
the one that gets the Court of Criminal Appeals to finally interpret
CCP 11.073, Texas new "junk science writ," as amended by the 2015
Legislature. If so, the court has chosen a case of first impression
which addresses only changes in overall scientific understanding, not
recantations of bad science testimony proffered by individual
scientists, which was
the issue raised in the cowardly Ex Parte Robbins decision recently
where the
court punted instead of interpreting the new law......... See the
CCA's opinion authorizing the trial court to investigate this alleged junk science, past
coverage from the Austin Chronicle, and a
2014 article in The Atlantic about the Avila case."
http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2016/03/confronting-junk-science-and-judicial.html