In 2002 a Texan court sentenced British national Linda Carty to death by lethal injection for her alleged part in the murder of Joana Rodriguez. Carty has consistently denied her guilt, but now she may be only months from execution for a crime she claims she did not commit.
On May 16 2001, four men broke into the apartment where Rodriguez and her partner lived, demanding drugs and cash.
Rodriguez and her four-day-old son Ray were abducted.
The baby was later found unharmed in a car, but his mother suffocated in the boot of another vehicle.
When three of the four men - Chris Robinson, Gerald Anderson and Carliss Williams - were arrested they claimed that Carty had planned the crime and told police that they would find a substantial quantity of drugs in the flat.
Legal action charity Reprieve, which represents Carty, argues that there is no evidence to connect her to the crime.
Yet despite this, prosecutors claimed that she had orchestrated the abduction and murder on the spurious and highly questionable grounds that she wished to steal the child and pass it off as her own in a bid to keep her common-law husband.
This outlandish theory becomes even more dubious when it is considered that the child was of a different race to both the defendant and her husband.
Carty, a native of St Kitts and therefore a British passport holder, has spent over eight years on death row.
A former primary school teacher and volunteer social worker on the Caribbean island, Carty and her family had left St Kitts in 1982 and settled in the US.
She has a daughter, Jovelle, herself now a mother.
Carty began studying pharmacology at the University of Houston and while there she was apparently approached by the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA). She became an undercover informer passing on information about suspected drug smugglers.
It is unclear how long she operated in this capacity, but it has been suggested that her being implicated by the three men may have been an act of revenge for her informing, as well as a way of the three avoiding the death penalty.
Carty had a history of abusive relationships and had been raped in 1988, becoming pregnant as a result. She gave the child up for adoption, something she hid from her family through shame.
She also suffered a number of devastating bereavements, including the death of her father.
Reprieve argues that, had her previous history, character and other mitigating factors been disclosed at trial it may have persuaded the jury not to find her guilty.
But the jurors had no access to this information.
Carty's court-appointed lawyer Jerry Guerinot has been accused of incompetence over his handling of the case. It is alleged that he did not even meet his client until immediately before trial despite it being a capital case.
A Reprieve spokesman said: "Despite the fact that Linda's life was at stake, an investigator from Guerinot's office spoke to Linda for the first time just a couple of weeks before her trial, and then only for 15 minutes.
"Guerinot himself did not meet with Linda until shortly before trial.
"According to Guerinot he tried to talk to Linda but she refused. Linda, on the other hand, says she tried to get in touch with him numerous times but that he refused to accept her calls."
Reprieve also argues that the lawyer had failed to spot obvious flaws in the prosecution case and did not interview witnesses or investigate mitigating evidence.
Carty was also apparently not informed that, as a British passport holder, she was entitled to consular assistance.
Under the terms of a bilateral treaty, the US is obliged to inform Britain if one of its citizens is detained and notify the individual of their right to consular assistance.
This did not happen in Carty's case.
The British government filed an "amicus curiae brief," a document registering a legal opinion or concern from a third party, before the Supreme Court this month arguing that had it been notified of Carty's arrest it would have assisted in securing "meaningful and effective legal representation."
The brief also states that the government would have monitored the case and attempted to persuade prosecutors not to seek the death penalty.
A second such brief, this time submitted to the Supreme Court by Reprieve on behalf of British documentary film-maker Steve Humphries, who has studied the case in detail, raises serious concerns about Guerinot. The brief states that "Mr Guerinot has represented 39 clients charged with capital murder in a career in capital defence spanning 23 years, from 1980 to 2003. Out of these, 20 have received the death penalty.
"With 20 clients sentenced to death, Mr Guerinot has more clients on death row than 32 of the 50 states."
And it goes on to conclude that "Linda Carty's trial was utterly flawed - because of a lawyer whose career has seen one inadequate defence after another. It is no exaggeration to suggest that Mr Guerinot has perhaps the worst record of any capital lawyer in the United States."
Carty's case has been consistently highlighted by Reprieve. In recent weeks it has received high-profile backing.
Last-ditch appeals have been issued to the Supreme Court asking it to re-hear the case on the grounds that Carty had not had adequate legal representation. But such interventions are rare.
Reprieve executive director Clare Algar commented at a recent press conference: "Linda Carty's court-appointed lawyer did not act as her lawyer in any sense of the word.
"It is horrendous that his incompetence may result in Linda's death. We hope the Supreme Court will reopen this case in the interests of justice."
If the Supreme Court refuses to re-hear the case the only remaining option will be a petition for clemency.
If this too fails Carty could face execution within months.