By The Texas Supreme Court issued a last-minute stay of execution for Robert Roberson, 57, who was set to become the first person in the United States executed for a murder conviction based on shaken baby syndrome. This dramatic intervention on Thursday night capped a day of intense legal maneuvering and highlighted the ongoing debate over the scientific validity of shaken baby syndrome diagnoses in criminal cases.
Roberson was convicted in 2002 for the death of his 2-year-old daughter, Nikki Curtis, in Palestine, East Texas. His case has drawn significant attention due to questions about the medical evidence used to convict him and the evolving understanding of shaken baby syndrome in the medical community.
The court’s decision came after an extraordinary series of events, including unprecedented bipartisan legislative support for Roberson. Over 80 state lawmakers, including at least 30 Republicans, had appealed to the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles and Governor Greg Abbott to halt the execution. The Texas House Criminal Justice Reform Committee held an all-day meeting on Wednesday to review Roberson’s case, focusing on whether a 2013 law allowing prisoners to challenge convictions based on new scientific evidence was properly applied.
In a surprise move, the committee issued a subpoena for Roberson to testify next week, effectively attempting to delay his execution through legislative action. This unprecedented step was followed by a flurry of legal challenges, with Roberson’s attorneys pursuing multiple avenues to stop the execution, including appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court. While these were ultimately denied, Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a 10-page statement urging Governor Abbott to grant a 30-day delay.
The night of the scheduled execution saw a series of rapid-fire court rulings. An Austin judge initially paused the execution based on the legislative subpoena, but this was quickly overturned by an appeals panel. The Texas Supreme Court then intervened with its stay order, ending a night of legal uncertainty.
Roberson’s case has become a focal point in the debate over shaken baby syndrome, now referred to in the medical community as abusive head trauma. His supporters, including medical experts and bestselling author John Grisham, argue that his conviction was based on outdated scientific evidence. They contend that Nikki Curtis died from complications related to severe pneumonia, not from abuse.
The case has also raised questions about how Roberson’s undiagnosed autism may have affected perceptions of his guilt. His lawyers suggest that his lack of visible emotion over his daughter’s death, a characteristic often associated with autism, was misinterpreted by authorities as a sign of guilt.
Amanda Hernandez, a spokesperson for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, reported that Roberson was “shocked” by the stay and “praised God and thanked his supporters” upon hearing the news. He will now be returned to the Polunsky Unit, where Texas houses its male death row inmates.
This case underlines the ongoing challenges in the criminal justice system regarding the use of scientific evidence, particularly in cases involving child deaths. It also underscores the power of bipartisan cooperation in addressing potential miscarriages of justice and the complex interplay between legislative, executive, and judicial branches in death penalty cases.
As Roberson prepares to testify before the House committee on Monday, his case continues to raise important questions about the intersection of science, law, and justice in the American legal system.
