Texas appeals court rejects lower court's finding that death row inmate Melissa Lucio is innocent

Key points

• The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals issued an unsigned opinion rejecting District Judge Arturo Nelson's 2024 findings that Lucio was innocent and that prosecutors suppressed evidence.
• Four of the nine judges dissented from the ruling, with three filing separate dissenting opinions arguing the majority ignored the state's concession of withheld evidence.
• Lucio's defense argued that a newly discovered blood coagulation disorder in her daughter explained the bruising, but the majority and concurring judges rejected this explanation.
• Lucio's attorney, Vanessa Potkin, stated that the defense will appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, citing the lower court's detailed findings and the district attorney's admission of error.
• If exonerated, Lucio would become the first woman declared innocent from Texas death row since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976.

Background

Lucio was convicted in 2008 for the 2007 death of her two-year-old daughter, María Alvarez, who died from blunt force trauma to the head. Lucio claimed the child fell down a flight of stairs, but paramedics and hospital staff found multiple bruises. In 2022, the appeals court stayed Lucio's execution and directed a lower court to review new scientific evidence and claims of suppressed evidence. A bipartisan group of Texas lawmakers had previously urged the parole board to consider her innocence before the stay was granted.

Why it matters

The ruling maintains Lucio's death sentence after 18 years on death row, despite significant public and legislative scrutiny of her case. The deep division among the appeals court judges, with four dissenting, highlights the contentious nature of the evidence and the potential for further legal challenges at the federal level.

What to watch

Lucio's legal team plans to appeal the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals' decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. The next step will involve federal review of the state court's handling of the habeas corpus claims and the alleged suppression of exculpatory evidence by prosecutors.