The police laboratory was later closed down after a state investigation showed evidence of widespread errors and bias. In 2020, a state judge ruled that Escobar had suffered a due process violation as a result of "scientifically unreliable" evidence and deserved a new trial."
——————————————————————————
PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "Escobar's lawyers said the appeals court's first ruling did not address the state's confession of error. The second ruling was even worse, they added, "rejecting any deference to the considered judgment of the law enforcement officers who secured the guilty verdict." Travis County District Attorney Jose Garza wrote in a court filing in support of Escobar that the appeals court's decisions were "surprising" and that it had not adequately responded to the U.S. Supreme Court's earlier ruling saying further review was warranted. "The state complied with its constitutional and statutory duties to rectify an injustice and remedy false evidence by conceding error," Garza wrote. And yet, he added, the appeals court "gave the state's viewpoint no weight."
------------------------------------------------------------------
GIST: "The Supreme Court declined Monday to intervene over a Texas death row inmate's claim that his murder conviction should be thrown out because DNA evidence used at trial was later found to be flawed.
The justices turned away the appeal brought by Areli Escobar, who was convicted of the 2009 murder of 17-year-old Bianca Maldonado.
In a twist, prosecutors had agreed that the evidence was faulty and that a new trial was appropriate.
The case bears some similarity to one the court recently decided in favor of Oklahoma death row inmate Richard Glossip. In both cases, prosecutors have admitted fault, but state courts nevertheless ruled against the defendants. The Supreme Court ultimately threw out Glossip’s conviction.
The Escobar case puts the spotlight on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. In January 2022, the court upheld Escobar's conviction even though prosecutors conceded that the evidence was problematic.
Escobar filed his first appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court, which in January 2023 asked the state court to review his case a second time.
But in September 2023, the state court again ruled against Escobar, saying there was "no reasonable likelihood that the outcome would have changed if the false evidence had been replaced with accurate evidence."
Escobar was convicted and sentenced to death in 2011 for the murder of Maldonado, who was stabbed and sexually assaulted at her apartment in Austin, Texas.
Prosecutors heavily relied on DNA evidence analyzed by the Austin Police Department’s laboratory, as well as a private laboratory.
The police laboratory was later closed down after a state investigation showed evidence of widespread errors and bias.
In 2020, a state judge ruled that Escobar had suffered a due process violation as a result of "scientifically unreliable" evidence and deserved a new trial.
Escobar's lawyers said the appeals court's first ruling did not address the state's confession of error. The second ruling was even worse, they added, "rejecting any deference to the considered judgment of the law enforcement officers who secured the guilty verdict."
Travis County District Attorney Jose Garza wrote in a court filing in support of Escobar that the appeals court's decisions were "surprising" and that it had not adequately responded to the U.S. Supreme Court's earlier ruling saying further review was warranted.
"The state complied with its constitutional and statutory duties to rectify an injustice and remedy false evidence by conceding error," Garza wrote. And yet, he added, the appeals court "gave the state's viewpoint no weight."
The entire story can be read at:
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. 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;
