U.S. Supreme Court Denies Review in Texas Faulty DNA Evidence Case, Despite Prosecutor Confession of Error

On March 24, 2025, the United States Supreme Court denied review of Areli Escobar’s (pic­tured) most recent appeal of his mur­der con­vic­tion, which argued for relief based on the fact that the Texas pros­e­cu­tor had con­fessed error over the mis­lead­ing use of incon­clu­sive DNA evi­dence at tri­al. In his peti­tion, Mr. Escobar’s legal team said Travis County pros­e­cu­tors had relied heav­i­ly at tri­al on com­pro­mised evi­dence ana­lyzed by the Austin Police Department’s crime lab­o­ra­to­ry. Additional DNA test­ing under­tak­en just days after Mr. Escobar’s 2011 tri­al and hid­den from the defense until 2017 revealed that the DNA test­ing pre­sent­ed at his tri­al was ulti­mate­ly incon­clu­sive — a fact that Mr. Escobar’s jury nev­er heard. Current Travis County District Attorney Jose Garza agreed with Mr. Escobar that the prosecution’s case was flawed and joined in ask­ing the Court for a new tri­al. After ini­tial­ly remand­ing the case to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals for recon­sid­er­a­tion, the Court declined to inter­vene a sec­ond time and issued no writ­ten opin­ion explain­ing its reasoning.

The Supreme Court’s deci­sion not to inter­vene in Mr. Escobar’s case comes just a month after the Court vacat­ed the con­vic­tion of Richard Glossip, who also enjoyed sup­port from state offi­cials in his request for a new tri­al. Both Mr. Escobar and Mr. Glossip asked the Court to estab­lish a stan­dard for over­turn­ing cap­i­tal con­vic­tions when pros­e­cu­tors no longer wish to defend the orig­i­nal case, but the jus­tices declined to do so in both cas­es. In briefs filed in both cas­es, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton opposed the requests for a new stan­dard, argu­ing against auto­mat­i­cal­ly grant­i­ng relief based on admis­sion of prosecutorial error.

Mr. Escobar was con­vict­ed and sen­tenced to death in 2011 for the rape and mur­der of Bianca Maldonado 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 Mr. Escobar’s cloth­ing and items found at the crime scene. Prosecutors also pre­sent­ed tes­ti­mo­ny from Mr. Escobar’s ex-girl­friend that she received a call in which she heard a woman repeat­ed­ly scream­ing for ten min­utes while being raped — though she ini­tial­ly told inves­ti­ga­tors she heard Mr. Escobar hav­ing ​“con­sen­su­al sex” with a woman.

After the Austin Police Department crime lab was shut down in 2016 for wide­spread prob­lems relat­ed to evi­dence han­dling and test­ing, Mr. Escobar con­test­ed the lab results and sought relief in Texas courts. A state tri­al court ruled in his favor. The Travis County District Attorney’s office ini­tial­ly opposed Mr. Escobar’s request but changed its posi­tion after the evi­dence was pre­sent­ed to the tri­al court. The court found that the lab’s fail­ures were wide­spread and includ­ed a ​“fail­ure to adhere to sci­en­tif­i­cal­ly acceptable practices[.]”

Despite the DA’s sup­port of Mr. Escobar’s request, the TCCA denied him all relief. It also denied the prosecution’s motion for recon­sid­er­a­tion. Mr. Escobar appealed, and in January 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mr. Escobar, order­ing the TCCA to recon­sid­er his peti­tion. Subsequently, in September 2023, the TCCA again ruled against Mr. Escobar, assert­ing that there was ​“no rea­son­able like­li­hood that the out­come would have changed if the false evi­dence had been replaced with accu­rate evi­dence.” This lat­est appeal was Mr. Escobar’s request to over­turn the TCCA’s deci­sion. DA Garza’s office indi­cat­ed that it was ​“review­ing next steps” in Mr. Escobar’s case.