In an 11th-hour turn of events, Robert Roberson, the first person set to be executed in the U.S. based on the largely discredited “shaken baby syndrome” hypothesis, was granted a temporary hold on his death sentence.
Late Thursday evening, the Texas Supreme Court issued a temporary stay in the case, delaying the looming execution and capping, for now, a back-and-forth series of legal maneuvers, including an earlier decision by the U.S. Supreme Court not to intervene in the case.
When he learned of the last-minute delay of his execution, Roberson, who was convicted of murder in the death of his 2-year-old daughter, was “shocked,” and then “praised God, thanked his supporters and proclaimed his innocence,” said Amanda Hernandez, director of communications for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, during a news conference Thursday evening.
The Texas high court’s ruling came after Travis County District Court Judge Jessica Mangrum initially put a temporary hold on Roberson’s execution to allow him to testify in a legislative hearing next week — something sought by a bipartisan group of state lawmakers who had subpoenaed Roberson to appear in a bid to delay the execution.
The temporary hold came through less than two hours before Roberson was scheduled to be executed. Shortly thereafter, however, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed it, putting the execution back on track.
In response, state lawmakers quickly sought a temporary stay by the state’s Supreme Court, which ultimately granted the request.
Notably, Roberson’s execution warrant was only valid through Oct. 17.
A legislative hearing at which Roberson is set to testify is scheduled for noon on Monday in the Texas State Capitol.
“For 22 years, this man has been held in prison — on death row — and we’re hoping that with this ruling today we’ll be able to bring light and get to truth,” Texas State Rep. John Bucy told reporters after the Texas Supreme Court issued its order halting the execution.
Monday’s hearing, in part, will examine laws in Texas targeting “junk science” or unreliable forensic science evidence.
“We needed Robert to be there as a first-hand account, to be able to testify to how it’s been used in his case,” Bucy said.
This handout image courtesy of the Innocence Project shows Robert Roberson photographed through plexiglass at the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Polunsky Unit, Dec. 19, 2023, in Livingston, Texas.
Ilana Panich-linsman/Innocence Project/AFP via Getty Images
Roberson was found guilty of the murder of his 2-year-old daughter, Nikki, based on the testimony from a pediatrician who described swelling and hemorrhages in her brain to support a “shaken baby syndrome” diagnosis, even though there is limited evidence that this is a credible diagnosis.
The hypothesis has come under serious scrutiny in biomechanical studies, as well as a growing body of medical and legal literature. The medical examiner at the time also suspected that Nikki sustained multiple head injuries and considered the death a homicide in the official autopsy.
Roberson is autistic, according to his legal team, which affects how he expresses emotions — a concern that also arose during the trial.
Since his conviction, newly presented evidence found that Nikki had pneumonia at the time of her death and had been prescribed respiratory-suppressing drugs by doctors in the days leading up to her death.
A medical expert who performed post-mortem toxicology reports and reexamined her lung tissue said they found that chronic interstitial viral pneumonia and acute bacterial pneumonia were damaging her lungs, causing sepsis and then septic shock, likely leading to vital organ failure.
Over 30 medical and scientific experts have written to the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, asking it to reconsider Roberson’s sentence because it hinged on the “shaken baby syndrome.”
A bipartisan group of 86 Texas House of Representatives members have also spoken in support of Roberson’s clemency request, arguing that a state law enables reviews of wrongful convictions based on changes in scientific evidence. In Roberson’s case, they believe that the new evidence should have led to a new trial.
Texas lawmakers meet with Robert Roberson, center, at a prison, Sept. 27, 2024, in Livingston, Texas.
Criminal Justice Reform Caucus via AP
In his plea to halt the execution to the Supreme Court, Roberson argued that his federal due process rights were violated when Texas’ highest court refused to consider his bid to reopen the case based on “substantial new scientific and medical evidence.”
The plea itself followed two previous efforts: to have his sentence commuted to life in prison and to have his execution delayed. Both requests were denied by the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles.
In its statement of opposition to the Supreme Court on Wednesday, the state of Texas claimed that there has been no violation of Roberson’s constitutional rights that would warrant intervention from the higher court.
It said that its own courts have adequately considered and rejected Roberson’s requests to review the evidence, writing: “As noted by the [Criminal Court of Appeal’s] opinion on direct review and Judge [Kevin] Yeary’s recent concurrence, ‘the tiny victim suffered multiple traumas’ that are inconsistent with a short fall from a bed or complications from a virus.”
Before the flurry of back-and-forth decisions in Texas on Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Roberson’s request for a stay and his petition that the justices take up the case.