HOUSTON (AP) — The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has once again paused the execution of Robert Roberson, who was set to be executed this October for a murder conviction related to a shaken baby syndrome diagnosis. This latest stay reflects ongoing concerns about the reliability of the evidence used in his conviction and represents the third postponement since 2016.
The appeals court's decision follows a campaign led by Roberson's lawyers and a bipartisan group of Texas lawmakers, who argue that he is innocent. Their appeals have included requests for intervention from the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles and Governor Greg Abbott, aiming for a new trial based on evolving scientific standards.
Roberson was sentenced to death for the murder of his 2-year-old daughter, Nikki Curtis, whose death was attributed to blunt force injuries. His legal team contends that Roberson's undiagnosed autism played a role in misconstruing his behavior during the investigation, suggesting that his demeanor was wrongly interpreted as a sign of guilt. He received an autism diagnosis in 2018.
The current stay was granted under Texas' 2013 'junk science law' which allows convicts to challenge their convictions if the evidence against them is deemed unreliable. In a recent case, the court overturned another man's conviction in a similar shaken baby syndrome scenario, suggesting that Roberson's case could follow suit.
Roberson's family, including his half-brother Matthew Bowman, expressed disappointment at the stay, insisting on Roberson's guilt based on the evidence presented during the 2003 trial. Prosecutors maintain that Roberson's actions directly led to Nikki's death, categorizing it as child abuse.
While advocates for justice call attention to the complexity of shaken baby syndrome and its impact on wrongful convictions, Roberson's legal battle emphasizes the critical intersection of medical science and the legal system. His case continues to draw support from various political figures and public advocates who are challenging the integrity of convictions based on outdated scientific methods.
This case remains a significant point of discussion regarding justice, due process, and the reliability of forensic evidence in capital punishment cases in Texas.
