Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with a Texas death row inmate who is trying to overturn his conviction due to possibly faulty DNA evidence. In a rare situation, the inmate received the support of the prosecuting district attorney. The ruling puts the case back in the hands of the Texas Court of Appeals for reconsideration—the same court that affirmed the conviction two years earlier.
Case background
In 2011, Areli Escobar was convicted of the rape and murder of 17-year-old Bianca Maldonado. Maldonado was sexually assaulted and stabbed 43 times in front of her infant son, who survived the attack.
Police recovered multiple items of potential evidence from the scene, including bloodstains, a bloodstained lotion bottle with a fingerprint, a shoeprint impression, and bloodstains from the front door. The stain on the doorknob lock inside the front door to the victim’s apartment was the only DNA sample from the crime scene. The Austin Police Department’s DNA Laboratory, who collected and tested much of the forensic evidence, indicated that Escobar could not be excluded as the source of the DNA during the 2011 trial.
The State’s witnesses from the APD DNA lab told the jury that the lab was accredited and had protocols
based on sound scientific principles that had been validated. In closing arguments, the prosecutor told the jury they “were fortunate because they had DNA evidence, and that each DNA sample was a key piece of the puzzle proving [Escobar’s] guilt.”
However, in 2016, an audit by the Texas Forensic Science Commission found significant issues with the handling and analysis of DNA evidence at the Austin Police Department Forensic Laboratory. Findings included the use of scientifically inappropriate stochastic threshold, use of validation studies that lacked data to support the use of that stochastic threshold, suspect-driven bias, and deviation from protocols and procedures by analysts. The audit revealed the issues were particularly extensive in the DNA section.
Appeals and fact finding
After multiple applications for habeas relief, the Texas Court of Appeals remanded the case to the District Court for further fact finding.
In December 2020, a district court judge ruled that Escobar deserved a new trial because DNA was the crux of the prosecution’s case with the remaining evidence either weak or circumstantial—and now that DNA was known to be scientifically questionable.
“Having found that the relevant scientific community, law enforcement, the judiciary and the governmental entities responsible for funding and oversight of the APD DNA lab reached the conclusion that the testing done by the lab was unreliable, the Court concludes it would be shocking to the conscience to uphold the conviction of [Escobar]. [Escobar’s] trial was fundamentally unfair,” reads the brief.
Travis County District Attorney José Garza took office in January 2021, and, in light of the District Court decision, reviewed the allegations of flawed forensic evidence. The district attorney’s office found concerns, including:
- An APD DNA lab analyst, who had performed some of the serology and DNA testing on evidence, including Escobar's shoes and shirt, had been involved in at least nine documented contamination incidents between 2006 and 2015, impacting over 30 cases.
- Another analyst violated best practices mandating that crime scene samples should not be placed next to person-of-interest samples when she processed high-quantity DNA swabs from the crime scene and the victim’s fingernail clippings at the same time as low-quantity DNA samples taken from Escobar's shirt and jeans.
- At least two APD crime scene specialists who handled biological evidence in this case had significant disciplinary issues related to proper evidence handling.
- Another specialist, who had also been reprimanded previously for improperly packaging and handling evidence, resigned from APD after it was discovered that she falsified her qualifications on her employment application and perjured herself in court.
Ultimately, the state itself agreed Escobar should receive a new trial as “the false and misleading testimony in this case was material” and there was “a reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury.”
However, the Texas Court of Appeals did not see it that way. The court sustained the conviction and held that Escobar’s rights were not violated because he failed to show a reasonable likelihood that the false DNA evidence could have impacted the jury’s judgment. Even after Garza’s office pointed out it was no longer standing behind the conviction, the appeals court stuck with its ruling.
On Jan. 9, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court gave an indication they viewed the case similar to both the district court and the attorney general’s office. The Supreme Court’s decision vacates the Texas Court of Appeals’ denial of a new trial. However, the action also returns the case—and the decision—to the appeals court.
Garza told The Texas Tribune the Supreme Court’s ruling made Jan. 9 “an important day for justice.”
“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,” said Garza.