In a significant decision on Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court opted not to take up the appeal of a Texas death row inmate, Areli Escobar, despite the unique circumstance of the local prosecutor’s office, which originally prosecuted him, supporting a new trial for Escobar. The highest court’s decision means that the ruling by the Texas appeals court, which upheld Escobar’s conviction for murder and his death sentence, stands intact.
This outcome is intriguing in light of a recent Supreme Court ruling that overturned the conviction of another death row inmate, Richard Glossip from Oklahoma. However, the details surrounding Escobar’s case led to a different outcome. Notably, Escobar is not scheduled for execution imminently, contrasting with the urgency in Glossip’s case.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has twice dismissed Escobar’s appeals. Initially, a lower court had ruled for a retrial after the presiding judge pointed to issues with evidence presented during the trial. Upon the Supreme Court’s directive to reassess, the Texas court once again denied Escobar’s appeal.
Escobar’s conviction arises from his involvement in the 2009 stabbing and sexual assault death of 17-year-old Bianca Maldonado, a high school student who lived in the same apartment complex in Austin. Central to the prosecution’s case was DNA evidence processed by the Austin Police Department’s lab. However, subsequent audits revealed discrepancies and problems in the lab that called the trial’s fairness into question. Travis County District Judge David Wahlberg noted that the use of unreliable DNA evidence compromised justice during Escobar’s conviction.
In an interesting twist, once the case returned to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the newly elected district attorney for Travis County, Jose Garza—who campaigned on ensuring police accountability—decided not to defend Escobar’s conviction.
This contrasts with the situation in Oklahoma, where Attorney General Gentner Drummond supported setting aside Glossip’s conviction and death sentence after new evidence indicated Glossip did not receive a fair trial. The Supreme Court found that allowing false testimony from a key witness in Glossip’s case violated his constitutional right to a fair trial, leading to a reversal of his conviction.