Bulletin: Rigoberto Avila: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals gives Texas death row inmate 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. "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." Reporter Brandi Grissom; Dallas News.

"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