Justices examine next steps in murder case where prosecution admits error
RELIST WATCH
on March 20, 2025
at 2:14 pm
The Relist Watch columns examines cert petitions which the Supreme Court “relisted” in preparation for its upcoming conference. Here is a short explanation of relists.
The Supreme Court has been able to sort through the relists. The Supreme Court granted review at its last conference of a once-relisted question asking whether federal courts should follow state law that requires medical malpractice claims be supported by expert affidavits. The court also agreed that it would take up a twice relisted challenge against Colorado’s ban of “conversion therapy”. And because the outcome of that case could have broader implications on states’ ability regulate the speech and professional licensing laws, the Thomas wrote that lower court decisions reflect “widespread misunderstandings” about the burden-shifting framework, and its application is producing “troubling outcomes on the ground.” Thomas wrote that lower courts’ decisions reflect “widespread misconceptions” about burden-shifting, and its application is “producing troubling outcomes on ground.” This is the third time this article has featured it. It’s an unusual criminal petition in that the prosecution also thinks the defendant’s conviction should be reversed.
Areli Escobar was convicted in a Texas state court of the sexual assault and murder of Biana Maldonado Hernandez and sentenced to death. Escobar’s defence later discovered that the DNA evidence in the case had been compromised due to serious misconduct at the Austin Police Department lab. Escobar’s defense uncovered that the DNA evidence used in the case was compromised due to serious forensic misconduct at the Austin Police Department’s lab. Escobar then filed a second petition for habeas corpus, citing un Travis County District Attorney, who had campaigned against the death penalty, admitted to the error and joined Escobar in his call for a new trial. Meanwhile, the newly elected Travis County District Attorney, who campaigned against the death penalty, confessed error and joined Escobar’s call for a new trial .
On Escobar’s first trip to the Supreme Court, it vacated the court of criminal appeals’ denial of post-conviction relief and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of the state’s confession of error – an action known as a “GVR.”
But on remand, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals again denied relief, explaining that the state’s position on certiorari “add
nothing to what we were already aware of when we
denied relief.” It still concluded that Escobar failed to show a violation of his right to fair treatment and procedures and that the “evidence that has been shown to be false is not material because there is no reasonable likelihood that the outcome would have changed if the false evidence had been replaced with accurate evidence.”
This time around, Escobar argues in the Supreme Court that the Texas court only gave lip service to the justices’s GVR order, arguing that the lower court frustrated the state’s ability to explain why it no longer would defend the conviction by limiting supplemental briefing. Escobar claims that the Texas court only gave lip service to the GVR order, arguing that the lower court limited supplemental briefing and made it difficult for the state to explain why they would no longer defend the conviction. Escobar’s case is supported by “friends of the court” briefs submitted by the American Bar Association, former state attorneys general, and other prosecutors. Jose Garza, Travis County district attorney has once again filed a brief in support of the petition. When the case reached the Supreme Court, Escobar claimed that his case “presents a similar question to Glossip V. Oklahoma,” a case that the court had decided on and was in the briefing phase. Escobar argued, as in Glossip, that “due procedure of law requires reversal
when a capital conviction has become so contaminated with errors that the State no longer seeks its defense.” The Supreme Court ruled that Richard Glossip was entitled to a reversal of his conviction in late February. It held that the prosecution had violated their constitutional obligation under Napue, which required them to correct false testimony. The court requested and received the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ record in Escobar’s case. The relist this week suggests the justices still need time to figure out what to do here.[s]New Relists[previously]Escobar v. Texas, 23-934
Issues:
(1) Whether due process of law requires reversal, where a capital conviction is so infected with errors that the state no longer seeks to defend it; (2) whether the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals erred in holding there was no due process violation because there is “no reasonable likelihood” that the prosecution’s use of admittedly false, misleading, and unreliable DNA evidence to secure petitioner’s capital conviction could have affected any juror’s judgment.[](Relisted after the May 30, 2024 and Mar. 7, 2025 conferences. )
Returning Relists
Apache Stronghold v. United States, 24-291
Issue
: Whether the government “substantially burdens” religious exercise under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or must satisfy heightened scrutiny under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, when it singles out a sacred site for complete physical destruction, ending specific religious rituals forever.
(Relisted after the Dec. 6, Dec. 13, Jan. 10, Jan. 17, Jan. 24, Feb. 21, Feb. 28 and Mar. 7 conferences. )Ocean State Tactical, LLC v. Rhode Island, 24-131
Issues:
(1) Whether a retrospective and confiscatory ban on the possession of ammunition-feeding devices that are in common use violates the Second Amendment; and (2) whether a law dispossessing citizens without compensation of property that they lawfully acquired and long possessed without incident violates the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment.
(Relisted after the Jan. 10, Jan. 17, Jan. 24, Feb. 21, Feb. 28 and Mar. 7 conferences. )
Snope v. Brown, 24-203Issue:
Whether the Constitution permits Maryland to ban semiautomatic rifles that are in common use for lawful purposes, including the most popular rifle in America.
(Relisted after the Jan. 10, Jan. 17, Jan. 24, Feb. 21, Feb. 28 and Mar. 7 conferences. )
Franklin v. New York, 24-330Issues
: (1) Whether the Sixth Amendment’s confrontation clause applies to out-of-court statements admitted as evidence against criminal defendants if, and only if, the statements were created for the primary purpose of serving as trial testimony; and (2) whether a post-arrest report prepared about a criminal defendant by an agent of the state for use in a criminal proceeding can be admitted as evidence against the defendant at trial, without providing a right to cross-examine the report’s author.
(Relisted after the Jan. 10, Jan. 17, Jan. 24, Feb. 21, Feb. 28 and Mar. 7 conferences.)
L.M. v. Town of Middleborough, Massachusetts, 24-410Issue
: Whether school officials may presume substantial disruption or a violation of the rights of others from a student’s silent, passive, and untargeted ideological speech simply because that speech relates to matters of personal identity, even when the speech responds to the school’s opposing views, actions, or policies.
(Relisted after the Feb. 21, Feb. 28 and Mar. 7 conferences. )
Neilly v. Michigan, 24-395Issue
: Whether restitution ordered as part of a criminal sentence is punishment for purposes of the Constitution’s ex post facto clause.
(Relisted after the Feb. 28 and Mar. 7 conferences. )
Ellingburg v. United States, 24-482
Issue
: Whether criminal restitution under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act is penal for purposes of the Constitution’s ex post facto clause.
(Relisted after the Feb. 28 and Mar. 7 conferences. )Shockley v. Vandergriff, 24-517
Issue: Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit erred in denying petitioner’s application, over dissent, to appeal the denial of his Sixth Amendment ineffective assistance of counsel claims.
(Relisted after the Feb. 28 and Mar. 7 conferences. )
