To decide whether Lucio would be re-tried, the appellate court ordered Lucio’s first-instance court to reconsider four of the nine claims it filed in its habeas corpus warrant, which requires a civil servant to show a valid reason for booking a person. . A judge at the level of the court of first instance will consider her request and the response of the prosecutors before making a recommendation to the state court of appeals, which will decide whether a new trial will be held. It is not clear how long the process will take. “I do not think there is a way to predict whether Lucio will be re-tried on these four allegations,” said Robert Dunham, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, a non-partisan non-profit organization that has no position on the death penalty. but has been critical of the way it is administered. But “suspension of execution and detention for consideration of these claims is extremely important,” Dunham added, describing the decision this week as “an open door, a threshold that Melissa Lucio had to cross to pass her day.” in the court. ” Here, we will analyze these four claims and what Lucio and her lawyers claim.
Claim 1: No juror would have convicted Lucius without the false testimony of the state
The first detainee alleges that Lucio was convicted on the basis of false testimony by state medical experts and investigators who interrogated Lucio the night her daughter died. (The legal standard that Lucio’s team tried to follow is not worth anything. It does not require proof that the state knew that this testimony was false, at its request, only that it gave the jurors a false impression.) At the time of her death, Mariah’s body was covered in bruises “at various stages of healing”, her arm had been broken several weeks earlier and she had what authorities believed was a bite mark on her back, court documents show. Authorities, her lawyers say, ruled Maria’s injuries were abusive and began to confirm the theory, ignoring evidence that could prove Lucio’s innocence. Hours after Mariah’s death, Lucio was questioned by investigators, including a Texas Ranger who testified at Lucio’s state trial. She argued, according to the habeas application, that she knew Lucio was guilty based on her behavior: her head was down and she avoided eye contact – signs, she said, of her guilt. This testimony has since been proven to be “scientifically unfounded and false,” says Lucio’s habeas application. Citing a neuroscientist, he says that the scientific consensus today is that there is no basis for the idea that certain movements of the face and body can reveal one’s mental state. The medical examiner who conducted Mariah’s autopsy also gave false testimony, Lucio’s lawyers say. The medical examiner – who ruled that the blunt force injury was the cause of Mariah’s death – was informed that Lucio had confessed to child abuse. This knowledge, says Lucio’s habeas app, “corrupted” her autopsy and findings, and the medical examiner failed to review other parts of Mariah’s medical history, including her walking problem and documented history of falls due to her foot twisting. . At trial, the medical examiner testified about the situation that the injuries could only be caused by abuse, showing during her testimony the severe bruise on Mariah’s body, a fracture in her arm from several weeks before her death and alleged bite marks on her back. But Lucio’s lawyers, citing medical experts, have given other explanations for the injuries: Mariah showed signs of a blood clotting disorder that could lead to severe bruising, they say, and a broken arm is not uncommon in infants, especially those with a history of falls. Common causes of the blood disorder are head injuries – such as the one she fell from a steep staircase – and the infection Mariah appears to have been battling when she died, according to the habeas application. Both the evidence and the analysis of the bite marks have since been deemed “invalid and unreliable”, he says, noting that forensic dentists have found that the testimonies of experts who recognize the injuries as a human bite mark are “without scientific basis”. As a result, the testimony of these witnesses was false, Lucio’s lawyers argue, giving her the right to relief. CNN contacted prosecutors, Texas Rangers and the medical examiner for comment.
Claim 2: New scientific evidence would rule out Lucio’s conviction
Lucio’s second claim before the trial court is that previously unavailable scientific evidence would prevent a jury from finding Lucio guilty. As part of this claim, Lucio’s lawyers are also working to disprove her alleged confession. Lucio was convicted, in part, they say, based on statements she made to authorities in a lengthy interrogation “guilty” the night her daughter died. These vague indications that she was responsible for some of Mariah’s injuries – but not for admitting guilt for her death – were nevertheless presented at trial as a confession. But Lucio’s statements typically bear false confession, they say, citing two experts – something Lucio’s second allegation says she was particularly prone to giving because of her history of surviving sexual abuse and domestic violence. Lucio’s legal team said they denied harming Mariah more than 100 times during her interrogation. But after hours of questioning, they say, she “returned with a parrot” the language suggested by investigators and then showed the alleged abuse to a doll at the behest of investigators, says the habeas app. Lucio was particularly prone to pressure from researchers, given her “lifelong historical trauma”. This, too, her lawyers say, is new information that was not available at the time of her trial and her jurors did not hear the testimony of an expert for false confession. If they had, her lawyers say, she probably would not have been convicted.
Claim 3: Evidence shows that Lucio is innocent
He asserted that his confession had been obtained through torture and that his confession had been obtained through torture. Given the evidence, much of which was outlined above, “no reasonable juror would have found Ms. Lucio guilty beyond a reasonable doubt,” he says. And the execution of an innocent person would violate the Eighth and 14th Amendments, her rights to a fair trial, and amount to harsh and unusual punishment, she says.
Allegation 4: The state sent evidence in favor of Lucio’s defense
The final appeal to the trial court alleges that prosecutors sent evidence to help Lucio not disclose it to her defense counsel, further undermining her conviction and violating her rights to a fair trial. These included information from a Child Protection researcher who interviewed some of Lucio’s other children, who confirmed Maria’s fall and deteriorating health and denied allegations of abuse by their mother. Lucio’s lawyers also claim that the statements of Mariah’s brothers to the police were silenced: Instead of giving their affidavits to Lucio’s defense attorney, prosecutors gave the defense summaries that “omit” potentially exculpatory information, the habeas application reports. These alleged evidences, the document says, would show: the authorities knew that there were witnesses who said that Lucio did not abuse her children. There were other family members who knew Mariah had fallen down the stairs. and Maria had shown no sign that her hand was injured in the weeks before her death, among other things.
Stay of execution sends a message, says the expert
Although the suspension is “extremely good news” and “critical” for Lucio, “it does not guarantee a definite result,” Dunham told CNN. But it sends a message “that the courts need to pay more attention to issues of innocence,” he said, pointing not only to Lucio but also to Rodney Reed, another Texas death row inmate who has also pleaded not guilty and whose case will be tried. . by the Supreme Court. “Hopefully the message is that we should not deny potentially innocent people their day in court,” said the director of the Death Penalty Information Center. As for Lucio, her lawyers acknowledge that there is a long way to go. But they are optimistic: Monday’s decision “opens the door to a new trial,” said Vanessa Potkin, director of special affairs at the Innocence Project, “and, ultimately, fully justified.”
