From [HERE] The U.S. Supreme Court has reversed the denial of relief to a Texas death-row prisoner whose request for new trial is supported by local prosecutors. In a two-sentence decision, the Court granted certiorari to Areli Escobar, vacated the judgment of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (TCCA), and sent the case back for reconsideration. The Court’s summary reversal relied on Travis County prosecutors’ admission that Escobar’s conviction is based on “flawed and misleading forensic evidence.”

Escobar was sentenced to death in 2011 for the rape and murder of a woman in his apartment complex. No eyewitnesses linked him to the crime, and the prosecution’s case relied heavily on the Austin crime lab’s forensic testing of Escobar’s clothes and items found at the crime scene. After the Austin Police Department crime lab was shut down in 2016 for widespread issues with evidence handling and testing, Escobar sought relief in Texas courts. The Travis County District Attorney’s office initially opposed Escobar’s request, but it changed its position after evidence was presented to a Texas trial court. Despite the office’s support of Escobar’s request, the TCCA denied all relief and the prosecution’s motion for reconsideration. The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling sends the case back to the TCCA for further proceedings.

Travis County District Attorney José Garza said the Supreme Court’s ruling on January 9th made the day “an important day for justice.” Garza said, “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.”

Benjamin Wolff, the director of Texas' Office of Capital and Forensic Writs and one of Escobar’s attorneys, pointed out the importance of the case to the legitimacy of the criminal legal system. Wolf said, “No one should be convicted or sentenced to death because of junk science. … And no one should ever be put to death when the prosecution that secured their conviction can’t stand behind it.”