-----------------------------------------------------------------
NOTA BENE: A state court found that the DNA evidence used to convict him was false, misleading, unreliable, and material to his conviction - and after his conviction, that prosecutors no longer support, the state discovered serious problems in the laboratory that conducted the DNA test, ultimately closing the facility altogether. As per Adam Liptak: New York Times: October 24, 2022: "A state judge in Texas ruled that Areli Escobar, a death row inmate there, had been convicted based on junk science produced by a police DNA lab so riddled with problems that it had to be shut down. “It would be shocking to the conscience to uphold the conviction of Mr. Escobar,” Judge David Wahlberg of the Travis County District Court wrote in an 86-page decision in 2020. “Mr. Escobar’s trial was fundamentally unfair.” José P. Garza, the district attorney whose office had obtained the conviction, said his initial impulse was to dig in and continue to defend it. “But as more evidence came to light about how flawed the evidence the jury relied upon was, we had to re-evaluate that position,” he said. “Although it is the instinct of every district attorney to defend convictions, our job is to see that justice is done, and we take that very seriously.”................"Mr. Escobar was convicted in 2011 of murdering Bianca Maldonado Hernandez, who lived in the same apartment complex. The prosecution presented some circumstantial evidence, including cell tower records and a partial fingerprint, but the centerpiece of its case was evidence from the Austin Police Department’s DNA lab. At a later court hearing on a challenge to Mr. Escobar’s conviction, a juror said that the DNA evidence had been crucial. “I was sitting on the fence, if you will, as to whether he was guilty or not guilty all the way up to when the DNA evidence was submitted to the jury and, for me, that was the sealing factor,” the juror said. Five years after Mr. Escobar’s trial, an audit by the Texas Forensic Science Commission revealed shortcomings in the DNA lab’s work, including failures to follow scientific protocols, bias, contaminated samples and inadequate training. The lab suspended its operations, and it has never reopened. A 2016 letter to the Austin City Council from criminal judges in Travis County said that “the problems discovered raise questions about every determination made by the lab.” Given all of this, Judge Wahlberg found in 2020, the DNA evidence in Mr. Escobar’s case was “false, misleading and unreliable.” “Without the DNA evidence,” Judge Wahlberg wrote, “the remaining evidence relied on by the state was circumstantial and weak and would not have supported a conviction for capital murder.”
------------------------------------------------------------------
PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Before the Supreme Court, Escobar contends that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals erred in affirming his sentence based on its conclusion that there is no reasonable likelihood that the false DNA evidence could have affected the judgment of the jury. He argues that its judgment violates constitutional due process. The state of Texas (in the form of the Travis County District Attorney) supports the petition, ending its brief by stating, “the State agrees with Petitioner that this Court should summarily reverse the [Court of Criminal Appeals’] ruling or, alternatively, grant the petition and set this case for argument.”
POST: "Justices will take a closer look at a capital conviction that prosecutors no longer support," by John Elwood, published by The SCOTUSblog, on November 9, 2022. "John P. Elwood is a partner at Arnold & Porter in Washington, D.C., specializing in appellate litigation and administrative law, and also teaches the University of Virginia School of Law’s Supreme Court litigation clinic. He formerly worked at Vinson & Elkins and served as senior deputy in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel from 2005 until 2009 and as an assistant to the U.S. solicitor general from 2002 until 2005."
GIST: "There is one new relist this week: Escobar v. Texas. It’s an unusual criminal petition in that the prosecution also thinks the defendant’s conviction should be reversed.
Petitioner Areli Carbajal Escobar was convicted of capital murder in Texas state court based on false DNA evidence and sentenced to death.
After Escobar’s conviction, the state of Texas discovered serious problems in the laboratory that conducted the DNA test, ultimately closing the facility altogether.
On Escobar’s application for habeas relief, the state habeas court found that the DNA evidence used to convict him was false, misleading, unreliable, and material to his conviction.
Thus, the court recommended that relief be granted on Escobar’s federal due process claim.
Although the state initially opposed habeas relief, it changed its position when the case reached the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals; it agreed that Escobar’s federal due process rights had been violated and that he was entitled to have his capital conviction overturned.
The Court of Criminal Appeals nonetheless denied relief, holding that Escobar’s federal due process rights were not violated because he had failed to show any reasonable likelihood that the false DNA evidence could have affected the jury’s judgment. The Court of Criminal Appeals did not acknowledge the state’s contrary view.
Before the Supreme Court, Escobar contends that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals erred in affirming his sentence based on its conclusion that there is no reasonable likelihood that the false DNA evidence could have affected the judgment of the jury. He argues that its judgment violates constitutional due process.
The state of Texas (in the form of the Travis County District Attorney) supports the petition, ending its brief by stating, “the State agrees with Petitioner that this Court should summarily reverse the [Court of Criminal Appeals’] ruling or, alternatively, grant the petition and set this case for argument.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"New Relist
Escobar v. Texas, 21-1601
Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to SCOTUSblog in various capacities, is among the counsel to petitioner in this case.
Issue: Whether the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals erred in holding that the prosecution’s reliance on admittedly false DNA evidence to secure petitioner’s conviction and death sentence is consistent with the due process clause of the 5th Amendment because there is no reasonable likelihood that the false DNA evidence could have affected the judgment of the jury.
(relisted after the Nov. 4 conference)."
----------------------------------------------------------------
The entire post can be read at:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/11/justices-will-take-a-closer-look-at-a-capital/
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resurce. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog;
SEE BREAKDOWN OF SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG, AT THE LINK BELOW: HL:
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
-----------------------------------------------------------
