HOUSTON (AP) — In a significant legal development, Texas’ top criminal court has again paused the execution of Robert Roberson, a man facing death for a murder conviction closely linked to a contentious diagnosis of shaken baby syndrome. Roberson was set to be executed on October 16, 2023, for the death of his 2-year-old daughter, Nikki Curtis.
This recent stay marks the third time Roberson's lawyers have successfully halted his execution since 2016, underscoring persistent doubts over his guilt. The latest intervention came from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, pointing to similarities with another case in which a conviction related to shaken baby syndrome was overturned due to new scientific evidence.
Roberson's defense team has argued that the jury's decision was influenced by misconceptions regarding Roberson's behavior, particularly regarding his then-undiagnosed autism, which led medical personnel to misinterpret his emotional responses as indicative of guilt. A coalition of bipartisan Texas lawmakers has joined advocates calling for a new trial, fundamentally challenging the integrity of the original trial process.
The court's decision to grant a stay was influenced by a 2013 Texas law aimed at providing relief for persons convicted based on discredited scientific evidence. Roberson’s legal team is pushing for this law to apply to his case given that new research has called into question the validity of the methodologies used to support the diagnosis of shaken baby syndrome in the original trial.
While Roberson's supporters celebrate the stay as a potential step toward justice, family members of the victim express deep frustration. Nikki’s half-brother has voiced strong beliefs around Roberson's culpability, insisting that the evidence clearly points to guilt and hoping for the execution to proceed.
The contentious diagnosis of shaken baby syndrome, which refers to debilitating brain injuries resulting from violent shaking or impact, has recently been scrutinized, prompting discussions about wrongful convictions and the reliability of expert testimony in such cases. In light of evolving medical opinions and societal attitudes towards parental behavior, Roberson’s case represents a broader dialogue about the intersection of law, medicine, and ethics.
Supporters of Roberson, including prominent figures from diverse political backgrounds and medical experts, continue to advocate for his release, claiming longstanding issues of justice and due process in his prolonged legal struggle. As both sides await the court's ruling on whether he will be granted a new trial, the discussions surrounding his case illuminate the complex and often contentious landscape of criminal justice in the U.S.
