AUSTIN (Nexstar) – Robert Roberson, the man convicted of capital murder for the 2003 death of his 2-year-old daughter, Nikki, will get another chance to prove his innocence in district court after the state’s highest criminal court blocked his scheduled execution next week.
This is the second time in less than a year that Roberson’s execution has been halted. Last October, a bipartisan group of lawmakers led a dramatic, last-minute legal battle that halted Roberson’s execution. Roberson has maintained his innocence since 2003.
A 5-4 decision from the Republican court granted Roberson’s request to stay the execution under the state’s 2013 junk science law, which allows prisoners to request a second look at their case when the science used in a conviction is found to have been debunked.
What will happen next?
The case now returns to Anderson County District Court. “We won the battle, but we certainly did not win the war,” Gretchen Swain, Roberson’s attorney, said in a virtual news conference following the decision.
Roberson’s team will now have to prove to the court that he should get a new trial based on a ruling handed down by the Court of Criminal Appeals last year. In that case, a jury convicted Andrew Rourke of injury to a child. The prosecution in that case alleged that Rourke infected the child through Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS), and he was sentenced to 35 years in prison.
Rourke filed a motion arguing that the new scientific evidence conflicted with the evidence used to convict him at trial. The Court of Criminal Appeal granted his application and ruled that the science behind SBS had evolved, and if it had been introduced at the time of his trial, he would not have been convicted.
Roberson’s defense team claims the facts in this case parallel his own. “We have to basically fight this battle again, but in light of this change in the law,” Swain told reporters. “We will be able to go back to a new judge at the trial level and leverage the Rourke case to demonstrate that these cases are materially indistinguishable.”
Lawmakers’ reaction
However, State Rep. Mitch Little, R-Louisville, says Roberson’s case is not an SBS case, but a case of blunt force trauma. He said he was horrified and disappointed by the outcome.
“Everyone who laid hands on Nikki from the time she arrived at the hospital until the time of her death saw this condition for what it was, a collection of traumatic injuries intentionally inflicted on her body,” Little said.
Little argued that the defense’s expert evidence to show debunking of the SBS theory was available before Roberson’s trial, which would rule out the junk science law. He points to the dissenting opinion written by Justices Mary Lou Kill and Gina G. Parker.
“He has never shown that his evidence was not previously available or as material as requested
“Section 11.073, and did not overcome the subsequent bar,” the justices wrote. They concluded in their opinion that “the applicant claims that the SBS has been debunked, but he is mistaken; the SBS is a matter of ongoing and intense debate.”
A bipartisan group of lawmakers disagree with Little’s view and hope Roberson succeeds in his bid for a new trial.
“Mr. Roberson, going back more than two decades, has never had due process and has never had a fair trial, and so I hope the truth will come out here and justice will be served,” said State Rep. Brian Harrison, R-Midlothian.
State Rep. John Posey, D-Austin, says junk science law should be followed in Roberson’s case. “We’re doing the best we can with the science at the time, and as this continues to evolve, we need to take another look,” Posey said. “This is how we have fair justice in our system.”
He and other lawmakers visited Roberson, who is on death row, on Wednesday. He said Roberson remained confident he would prevail even a week before his supposed execution.
“This is a man full of hope and faith, and he holds on to that belief that one day he will get justice for himself and for his daughter,” Posey explained.
The next hearing in Roberson’s case has not been scheduled, but Swain said she has reached out to the district attorney’s office, which is representing the state in this case, to set a date to return to the courtroom.