A Texas court has paused the execution of Robert Roberson, scheduled for October 16, amid increasing scrutiny over shaken baby syndrome cases. This case has raised significant questions regarding the scientific basis for such diagnoses.
Background of the Case
Robert Roberson, aged 58, was convicted in 2003 for the death of his 2-year-old daughter, Nikki Curtis. His conviction relied heavily on evidence related to shaken baby syndrome, a serious brain injury caused by violent shaking or impacts. Concerns about the legitimacy of this diagnosis have emerged, with some experts asserting that it has wrongfully convicted individuals.
Legal Developments
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals announced its ruling, which is the third delay in Roberson’s execution since 2016. This decision leans on a Texas law passed in 2013, often dubbed the “junk science law.” This law permits courts to reevaluate convictions when scientific evidence has evolved.
- Roberson’s case may receive a new trial based on this recent ruling.
- The court’s decision coincided with a previous case in which similar medical evidence was deemed inadequate.
- Roberson’s execution would have marked him as the first U.S. inmate executed in a shaken baby syndrome case.
Support and Opposition
Roberson’s situation has garnered support from a diverse coalition, including lawmakers from various political backgrounds and author John Grisham. Despite this, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has opposed the efforts for Roberson’s retrial, maintaining that Nikki died as a result of abuse.
Next Steps
Following the recent ruling, Roberson’s case will return to the county trial court in East Texas. The court will assess whether Roberson deserves a new trial, which could either clear him or reaffirm his conviction. Gretchen Sween, one of his attorneys, expressed determination to expedite the review process, although no specific timeline has been set.
Roberson continues to assert his innocence, claiming Nikki’s death was due to pneumonia complications rather than abuse. His legal team emphasizes their belief that a fair evaluation of the current science will demonstrate that no crime was committed.
