STORY: "Court: Examine if Austin crime lab botched death penalty evidence," by reporter Chuck Lindell, published by The American-Statesman on October 18, 2017.
PHOTO CAPTION:
HIGHLIGHTS: "State’s highest criminal court orders examination of questions raised about DNA evidence in Austin murder. Areli Escobar was sentenced to die for the 2009 stabbing death of his neighbor, Bianca Maldonado, 17.
GIST: "The state’s highest criminal court on Wednesday ordered a closer examination of death row inmate Areli Escobar’s claims that shoddy work by the Austin police crime lab compromised evidence in his case. Escobar is seeking to have his conviction overturned, and a new trial ordered, after a Travis County jury sentenced him to death in the 2009 sexual assault and stabbing of his neighbor, 17-year-old Bianca Maldonado, an LBJ High School student who was attacked at her East Austin apartment with her year-old son, who survived, nearby. In a brief order issued Wednesday, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals directed state District Judge David Wahlberg to examine claims that the crime lab produced false or misleading conclusions from DNA evidence in the case, particularly on tests performed on the shirt, jeans and shoes that tied Escobar to the murder. Defense lawyers also argued that problems discovered at the crime lab after Escobar’s trial — including poorly trained analysts, reports of cross-contamination of samples and questionable analytical methods — tainted the DNA results used to convict Escobar of capital murder. “Areli Escobar’s capital murder conviction rests on forensic evidence developed by incompetent scientists using bad science,” defense lawyers with the state Office of Capital and Forensic Writs said in his latest appeal. Austin police officials closed the DNA portion of the crime lab in June 2016 after an audit by the Texas Forensic Science Commission, a state agency that includes leading forensic scientists, found that some staff members were not properly trained and that incorrect methods had been used to examine DNA samples. “In light of these developments, a comprehensive, independent review of … Mr. Escobar’s case is critical,” defense lawyers told the Court of Criminal Appeals. The appeals court also ordered Wahlberg to examine two other claims raised by Escobar’s lawyers: Whether a fingerprint examiner relied on scientifically invalid methods to link a partial bloody print, found on a lotion bottle 2 feet from Maldonado’s body, to Escobar. • Whether prosecution experts overstated the significance of cellphone activity — said to put Escobar in the vicinity of Maldonado’s apartment when she was killed — based on calls and texts routed through nearby cell towers. The case next returns to Wahlberg’s court, where Travis County prosecutors will have a chance to respond to the claims raised by defense lawyers. Wahlberg can order hearings and briefings to help him form a recommendation on whether he believes the Court of Criminal Appeals should toss out Escobar’s conviction and order a new trial. There is no deadline for the judge to issue his findings or for the appeals court to issue its ruling. During Escobar’s 2011 trial, prosecutors argued that DNA evidence established his guilt after tests found Maldonado’s blood on his shoes and shirt. In addition, blood on the inside of the victim’s door was linked to Escobar, while tests on blood found in Escobar’s car could not exclude the victim as the source, prosecutors told the jury. However, tests performed last year on the same evidence were less certain — finding, for example, that the blood on the door could not be interpreted without additional testing, or the samples on the shirt and shoes were inadequate for comparison techniques, defense lawyers said. “In stark contrast to what the jury heard, the (new testing) demonstrates that the results for these items are inconclusive and do not connect Mr. Escobar to the crime,” the lawyers said. In addition, the lawyers argued that Escobar, 38, deserves a new trial based on recent information detailing “gross incompetence and negligence at the APD lab.” Documents showed 11 “contamination incidents” of samples at the lab between 2005 and Escobar’s 2011 trial, they said, including seven by the analyst who tested items in the Maldonado case and three by the forensic scientist who screened evidence for the presence of DNA. When combined with the forensic science commission’s criticism of the lab’s training and practices, the information raises significant doubts about Escobar’s conviction, they told the appeals court. “The widespread problems at the lab … call into question all of the DNA evidence in Mr. Escobar’s case,” the lawyers said."
The entire story can be found at:
