Antonio Armstrong Jr. : “Houston Public Media: Fired DNA Analyst Role in Conviction”

Pool Feed

An attorney representing Antonio “A.J.” Armstrong Jr., who was convicted of the murder of his parents in 2016, is requesting a hearing to investigate the impact of a DNA analyst’s incompetence on his capital murder conviction.

Armstrong, 24, was found guilty by a Harris County jury in August last year and sentenced to life in prison after two previous trials resulted in hung juries.

The request for a new trial stems from revelations about Rochelle Austen, a DNA analyst who was fired by the Houston Forensic Science Center earlier this year due to substandard work and lack of attention to detail.

Armstrong’s lawyer, Patrick McCann, has petitioned the Fourteenth Court of Criminal Appeals in Texas to reassess the case and consider whether the conviction should be overturned based on Austen’s involvement and potential impact on the trial.

McCann highlighted the importance of disclosing information about Austen’s incompetence, stating that it could have influenced the defense’s strategies during the trial.

The Harris County District Attorney’s Office has not provided a comment on the matter.

Antonio “A.J.” Armstrong Jr. was a teenager when he was charged with the murder of his parents, Dawn and Antonio Armstrong Sr., who were shot to death in their home in 2016.

The defence team has raised concerns about the credibility of expert witness Celestina Rossi, who introduced new evidence in the trial that was not presented in previous court proceedings.

McCann’s motion for a new trial challenges Rossi’s testimony and questions the handling of DNA evidence in the case.

Austen’s errors, including the mishandling of DNA samples and failure to follow protocol, have raised doubts about the integrity of the forensic analysis in Armstrong’s case.

Armstrong’s legal team asserts that this new information could have influenced the trial’s outcome and warrants a reevaluation of the conviction.

Despite these developments, the request for a new trial has not been granted by the district court, leading Armstrong’s lawyers to seek further legal avenues for review.

As the case unfolds, the implications of Austen’s conduct and its potential impact on the trial continue to be a focal point of legal deliberations.