Introduction to the Case
Robert Roberson, an East Texas man, has been on death row for over two decades, convicted of capital murder for the death of his 2-year-old daughter Nikki. He was diagnosed with shaken baby syndrome, but Roberson has maintained his innocence, arguing that new scientific evidence debunks the shaken baby diagnosis and shows that Nikki died of severe illness worsened by prescribed medications.
The Delayed Execution
Roberson faced an October execution date last year, but state lawmakers intervened, forcing a delay after subpoenaing him to testify at a House committee meeting. This triggered a separation of powers conflict between the state executive and legislative branches, leading to a Texas Supreme Court order that temporarily paused Roberson’s execution.
The Attorney General’s Involvement
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has taken over the case, requesting a new execution date for Roberson. This move is unusual, as the attorney general’s office typically only gets involved in state court cases when a local prosecutor requests their assistance. Anderson County District Attorney Allyson Mitchell had been handling the case but requested the attorney general’s office to take over.
Concerns About the Case
Roberson’s attorney, Gretchen Sween, has expressed concerns about the attorney general’s involvement, stating that the office is not familiar with the case and has made "shocking misrepresentations" in filings and press releases. Sween argues that Roberson is innocent and that the new evidence presented in his appeal supports his claim.
The Appeal
Roberson’s new appeal, filed in February, includes expert opinions that the shaken baby diagnosis was unsound and that the autopsy concluding Nikki’s death was a homicide was flawed. The appeal also cites a recent decision by Texas’ top criminal court overturning the conviction of another man in a shaken baby case, which recognized that the scientific consensus around shaken baby diagnoses has changed over the last two decades.
Legislative Efforts
Legislation aimed at bolstering the state’s junk science law, which would provide justice in criminal cases whose convictions rest on since-discredited science, died in the Senate. Roberson’s case has highlighted the need for reform, with many lawmakers believing that he did not receive a full and fair trial.
Conclusion
The case of Robert Roberson has sparked controversy and debate, with many questioning the fairness of his trial and the reliability of the evidence used to convict him. As the attorney general’s office pushes for a new execution date, Roberson’s attorneys and supporters continue to argue that he is innocent and that the justice system has failed him. The outcome of this case will have significant implications for the use of scientific evidence in capital murder cases and the application of the junk science law in Texas.
