AUSTIN, Texas — Editor's note: A previous version of this story stated that Mejia received a life sentence without parole. The article has been updated to clarify she was sentenced to life with parole.
A woman convicted of murder in Travis County nearly 20 years ago could get a new trial.
The Travis County District Attorney's Office is reviewing the 2005 conviction of Carmen Mejia. She's serving a life sentence for the death of a 10-month-old baby. But medical experts say the child's death could have been an accident and her conviction may have been based on so-called "junk science."
Background on this case
At the time of the incident in 2003, investigators said Mejia intentionally submerged the 10-month-old baby in scalding hot bath water. It was also alleged that to cover up her actions, she failed to promptly get the baby medical care afterward, resulting in his death.
In 2005, Mejia was convicted of murder, injury to a child with serious bodily injury and injury to a child by omission. She was sentenced to life in prison with parole.
According to the DA's office, at her trial, the primary scientific evidence presented by prosecutors was that the pattern of the burns indicated they were inflicted intentionally. State experts also testified that they believed that the evidence proved the scalding was intentional. The DA's office said the experts were a non-medical burn expert and the emergency room doctor who treated the child.
Mejia's defense argued that older children who were present at the home at the time of the incident had attempted to give the baby a bath and that because the hot water gauge was set "dangerously high," the baby was burned when one of the older children accidentally turned the wrong handle.
The DA's office said at a previous hearing, a witness who was a child at the time testified that she turned on the faucet when the baby was in the bathtub, and that when she did that, Mejia wasn't in the room.
The DA's office said when given this new information, both original state experts swore affidavits that they could no longer say that the injuries were caused intentionally. The medical examiner who performed the autopsy on the child also reviewed the new information and changed her opinion on the manner of death from "homicide" to "accident."
At Monday's hearing, the state presented the affidavits to the court. Two witnesses also testified: a medical expert on burn patterns and an expert in scalding injuries due to hot water heaters.
New scientific burn evidence
Dr. James Gallagher, a burn surgeon and director of the burn center at the NewYork-Presbyterian Weill Cornell, the largest burn center in New York testified about what he typically sees with immersion burns.
Gallagher said that because the water in Mejia's house got up to extremely dangerous levels, a life-threatening burn would have happened instantly; no one would have to hold someone underwater for it to happen.
With intentional immersion burns, Gallagher said that if a person is holding someone in the water, there would be parts of the body that wouldn't be burned. He said it's called sparing because those parts of the body would be touching the bottom of the tub and therefore not getting burned by the water.
After looking through the medical examination of the child, Gallagher claims the child did not have sparing. He also testified that if he was held under the water, he would have burns under his arms where the person was holding him, but he did not.
Gallagher added that burns, especially in young children, can majorly impact the body's internal functions without physical symptoms manifesting, so the child can appear calm or sleepy when their body is actually going into shock. He said oftentimes the family or even health care providers don't recognize these symptoms.
The other accusation from the original trial was that Mejia did not act quick enough in getting the child the medical care he needed. But Gallagher said even if every circumstance was ideal in getting the child to emergency care immediately, there was still a high chance he would not live.
He said to have to use skin from the back, which was only 18% of the body, to cover the 70% of the body that was burned, it would be a very complex medical procedure with a high risk of death.
The second witness was Wendy Shields, a senior scientist with the John Hopkins Center for Injury Research and Policy. She testified about unsafe water heater conditions and how it's typically worse in older homes.
In 1986, the U.S. Department of Energy created a regulation that would make sure any new homes' water heaters would not get hotter than 120 degrees to reduce burn incidences. But Shields said if a home was built before then, they got grandfathered in to the regulation and did not have to follow it.
Mejia's home she was renting at the time was built in the '70s, so it was not under that regulation. Investigators found that the peak temperature of the bath water at the time of the incident was 147 degrees, which burns skin instantly.
Shields claims that if there was protection of the tap water that came out of the bathtub, the child would not have been at risk. She also claims it was the responsibility of landlords to regulate the water heater temperature at rental homes.
Why is this case getting re-examined?
The attention on this case all comes back to a retired Travis County Bailiff Art Guerrero, who was the bailiff for the original trial in 2005. Ever since that trial, he has felt that it wasn't handled fairly.
"I did a lot of trials of DWIs, rapes, murders, assaults, and this is the one that stood out," Guerrero said. "This is the one that somehow I felt like something was wrong."
During the trial, Guerrero said he observed several red flags with how this case was handled, including Mejia's representation, who he claimed was less than ideal, and the severity of the murder charge.
Guerrero stayed quiet about his thoughts, because he didn't want to lose his job over bringing it up, but slowly he started privately talking about it with defense attorneys.
He brought the case to the Innocence Project years ago, but it wasn't until Travis County District José Garza took office that he decided to approach the DA's office about it. Then the Innocence Project got on board.
More hearings are expected to happen in this case before the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals will make a decision. That court has a few options, including either granting Mejia a new trial, denying a new trial, finding her innocent, or sending the case back to the District Court for more evidence. Mejia will remain in prison while waiting for a decision from the court.
How has the Junk Science Law been applied to other cases?
Texas' "junk science law," which passed in 2013, presents a pathway for convicted people to obtain new trials if they can show that underlying forensic evidence in their case was flawed and that, without that flawed evidence, they likely wouldn't have been convicted.
But according to a report by The Texas Tribune, convicted people have struggled to win new trials under the law. The report states that, "Of the 74 junk science appeals filed and ruled upon by the Court of Criminal Appeals from September 2013 through December 2023, 15 people won relief, according to the Texas Defender Service, whose analysis did not include four successful and expunged appeals."
The report goes on to say, "While people sentenced to death filed just over a third of those appeals, none were successful. And almost 40% of all appeals were denied on procedural grounds without consideration of the substance of the claims."
The junk science law has made headlines recently because of the case of death row inmate Robert Roberson.
In 2003, Roberson was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of his 2-year-old daughter, who was diagnosed with shaken baby syndrome. He has sought to use the junk science law to vacate his conviction, arguing that new scientific evidence debunked that diagnosis and showed his daughter actually died of undiagnosed pneumonia.
His case has led to a legal back-and-forth. Roberson was scheduled to be executed on Oct. 17, but the House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence subpoenaed him the day before, successfully forcing a delay of his execution. That subpoena prompted an ongoing battle between lawmakers and the Texas Attorney General's Office over securing Roberson's testimony.