Areli Escobar’s execution to be reconsidered after Supreme Court order

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s every day e-newsletter that retains readers up to pace on probably the most important Texas news.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ordered the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to rethink its resolution to let a demise row inmate be executed though prosecutors now agree his conviction ought to be thrown out as a result of it relied on probably defective DNA proof.

In 2011, Areli Escobar was convicted of the rape and homicide of 17-year-old Bianca Maldonado. In 2020, a district courtroom choose dominated that Escobar deserved a brand new trial as a result of his conviction relied closely on “scientifically unreliable” DNA proof analyzed by a Travis County lab that was later closed down due to untrained workers and improper testing procedures.

In 2016, the Austin Police Department was forced to shut down its crime lab after the Texas Forensic Science Commission discovered widespread points with its DNA testing.

On attraction to the Court of Criminal Appeals, Travis County District Attorney José Garza agreed with Escobar that he ought to be granted a brand new trial. Still, the state’s highest legal courtroom upheld Escobar’s conviction, discovering that he “has failed to show that the general deficiencies discovered in the [Texas Forensic Science Commission] audit specifically affected the DNA results in his particular case.”

The flawed DNA proof was an important a part of the state’s case in opposition to Escobar, stated Benjamin Wolff, director of the Office of Capital and Forensic Writs, the state’s post-conviction public defender for capital and forensic science circumstances who represented Escobar in his attraction to the Supreme Court.

“The trial court, the defense and the prosecution all agree that Mr. Escobar should not have been convicted because the evidence used to convict him was entirely unreliable,” Wolff stated. “Thankfully, the Supreme Court stepped in and recognized that, in a death penalty case, it matters when the state can no longer support the conviction.”

In Escobar’s temporary to the courtroom, Wolff argued that the Court of Criminal Appeals went too far in upholding a conviction that the state’s personal prosecuting workplace not supported. “The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals stepped outside of the judicial role by sustaining the conviction on the basis of arguments no party made, reaching a result no party advocated, and in the process took upon itself the role of the prosecutor to decide whether the evidence was reliable enough to warrant the State convicting and executing petitioner,” the temporary said.

It’s uncommon in Texas for the prosecution to reverse course in these kind of high-profile circumstances, even when new proof is discovered. In such circumstances, although, the Court of Criminal Appeals has not less than as soon as failed to be swayed. Bobby Moore, one other Texas demise row inmate, was twice found by the U.S. Supreme Court to be intellectually disabled and due to this fact ineligible for the demise penalty — and was supported in that stance by Harris County District Attorney Kim Ogg. After the primary Supreme Court ruling, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals once more discovered Moore eligible for execution; he was granted parole in 2020 after the second, extra forceful Supreme Court ruling was issued in 2019.

The Travis County district lawyer stated the Supreme Court’s ruling made Monday “an important day for justice” within the county, noting that each one sides agree concerning the want for a brand new trial.

“It is undeniable that the jury in this case was told things that ended up not being accurate,” Garza stated. “We believe it’s really important for someone accused of a crime to have a jury that has access to complete and accurate facts. We’re hopeful that the Court of Criminal Appeals will share that perspective and review the facts of this case.”

“No one should be convicted or sentenced to death because of junk science,” stated Wolff, Escobar’s lawyer. “And no one should ever be put to death when the prosecution that secured their conviction can’t stand behind it.”