Introduction to the Case
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the state’s highest criminal court, made a surprising decision on Thursday, staying the execution of Robert Roberson III just one week before his scheduled execution. This ruling comes after a lengthy appeals process that involved legislative maneuvering, celebrity interventions, and public protests supporting Roberson. He was convicted and sentenced to death in 2003 for the death of his 2-year-old daughter, Nikki, and has maintained his innocence throughout.
The Appeals Process
A 6-3 majority of the judges on the Austin-based court agreed to part of a two-page ruling that proactively reopened one of Roberson’s challenges to his conviction, which they had previously ruled against. The judges rejected all of Roberson’s other challenges but issued a stay of execution and remanded the case to a district court. This decision was influenced by a 2024 ruling in an unrelated “shaken baby syndrome” case, which formed the backbone of their decision to pause Roberson’s execution.
The Shaken Baby Syndrome Case
In the unrelated case, a Dallas County man named Andrew Wayne Roark was sentenced to 35 years in prison on a charge of injury to a child. The case against Roark relied heavily upon a shaken baby syndrome diagnosis in an incident where he allegedly injured his girlfriend’s 13-month-old daughter in 1997. Roark had been babysitting the child when she became unconscious and was rushed to a Dallas hospital, later being discharged with permanent brain damage. In October 2024, the Court of Criminal Appeals exonerated Roark and ordered a new trial after finding that the science surrounding shaken baby syndrome had changed drastically and that many now considered it a debunked diagnosis.
Legislative Maneuvering
The Roark ruling was still fresh – a week old – when legislative maneuvering led by state Reps. Jeff Leach, R-Allen, and Joe Moody, D-El Paso, forced the Texas Supreme Court to issue an unprecedented stay on Roberson’s execution. Court of Criminal Appeals Judge Bert Richardson wrote in the sole opinion wholly concurring with Thursday’s ruling that because of the expedited timeline, Roberson’s attorneys had not been afforded the chance for the court to thoroughly review the case again under new legal precedents surrounding shaken baby syndrome.
Judges’ Opinions
In total, judges submitted six opinions on Thursday’s ruling, with several joining onto multiple opinions that both dissented and concurred with the order staying Roberson’s execution. Judges Jesse McClure III, Kevin Yeary, and Gina Parker disagreed with the court’s decision to reconsider the challenge to Roberson’s conviction based on the Roark case. The court’s presiding Judge David J. Schenck agreed that Roberson’s execution should be stayed but said the court should have gone a step further and ordered a new trial. Instead, the case will head back to a district court, where his attorneys intend to argue that the Roark ruling has paved the way for a new trial.
Concerns and Disagreements
Judge Kevin Yeary disagreed with the court’s decision to reopen the challenge based on the Roark ruling, writing that the ruling should not be taken as reason to dismantle all convictions involving shaken baby syndrome and that any interpretation that the science surrounding the diagnosis had been fully debunked is false. Yeary also took issue with the court ruling “by fiat” on a challenge to Roberson’s conviction that it dismissed a year ago. He stated that reopening a subsequent writ application that has already been disposed of may be justified only under the most extraordinary of circumstances.
Conclusion
The stay of execution for Robert Roberson III is a significant development in his case, which has garnered considerable attention due to the controversies surrounding shaken baby syndrome. The decision by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to reconsider Roberson’s challenge based on new legal precedents highlights the evolving nature of legal and scientific understanding. As the case heads back to a district court, Roberson’s attorneys will argue for a new trial, citing the changed circumstances and the potential for injustice if the original conviction stands without reconsideration under current legal and scientific standards.
FAQs
Q: What was Robert Roberson III convicted of?
A: Robert Roberson III was convicted and sentenced to death for the 2003 death of his 2-year-old daughter, Nikki.
Q: What influenced the decision to stay Roberson’s execution?
A: The decision was influenced by a 2024 ruling in an unrelated “shaken baby syndrome” case, which highlighted changes in the science surrounding the diagnosis.
Q: What happens next in Roberson’s case?
A: The case will head back to a district court, where Roberson’s attorneys intend to argue for a new trial based on the new legal precedents surrounding shaken baby syndrome.
Q: Why did some judges disagree with the decision to stay the execution?
A: Some judges, including Judge Kevin Yeary, disagreed because they believed the ruling should not automatically lead to the reconsideration of all convictions involving shaken baby syndrome, and they questioned the court’s authority to reopen a previously dismissed challenge.
Q: What is the significance of the Roark case in Roberson’s appeal?
A: The Roark case is significant because it led to the exoneration of Andrew Wayne Roark and an order for a new trial, based on the finding that the science surrounding shaken baby syndrome had changed drastically. This change in legal precedent is what Roberson’s attorneys are using to argue for a new trial.
