Robert Roberson’s case takes another look at Texas’ junk science law

Texas state representative John Bussey III speaks to reporters on the pending execution of Robert Roberson (Image credit: AP)

Austin: when robert robersonHis execution in Texas was abruptly halted, due to a subpoena ordering him to testify over a legal backstop that both Republicans and Democrats say should have saved him long ago: texas, Junk Science Law,
The 2013 law allows a person convicted of a crime to seek relief if the evidence used against them is no longer reliable. At the time, it was praised by the legislature as a unique solution for the future. false accusation Based on flawed science. But Roberson’s supporters say his case points to flaws in a judicial system where the law has been weakened by deliberate misinterpretation by the state’s highest criminal court.
Roberson is scheduled to testify before members of a State House committee on Monday, four days after he died by lethal injection.
“He’s seen how the prosecution has really stood in the way of bringing new science forward,” Democratic state Rep. John Bussey told The Associated Press. “I think his first-hand account will be helpful for this.”
Roberson, 57, was convicted of murdering her 2-year-old daughter, Nikki Curtis, in Palestine, Texas, in 2002. Prosecutors alleged that he violently shook his daughter back and forth, causing a fatal head injury. A bipartisan group of lawmakers, medical experts and the former lead prosecutor on the case have thrown their support behind Roberson, saying his conviction is based on flawed science.
In his clemency petition to Republican Governor Greg AbbottSeveral medical professionals wrote that Roberson’s conviction was based on outdated scientific evidence and that Curtis likely died from complications of severe pneumonia.
Shaken Baby Syndrome – now it is said abusive head trauma – According to Roberson’s lawyers, this was a popular misdiagnosis at the time that has been largely debunked.
Courts have rejected multiple attempts by his lawyers to hear new evidence in the case, and the Texas Parole Board voted not to recommend Roberson clemency, which would have been a way for Abbott to seek a stay of execution. It was a necessary step. The governor has not commented on Roberson’s case.
According to a report by the civil rights group, no person facing execution has had his or her sentence overturned since the junk science law was enacted in 2013. Texas Defender Service,
In the last 10 years, 74 applications have been filed and adjudicated under the Junk Science Law. One third of the applications were submitted by people facing death penaltyThey all failed.
Nearly three-quarters of the applications that granted relief were for convictions involving DNA evidence, less than half of the total applications.
Legal experts explain this as Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Misinterpreting the law and evaluating applicants based on their innocence rather than the evidence.
“In practice, the CCA is imposing a much higher standard than what legislators wrote,” said Burke Butler, executive director of the Texas Defender Service. “It’s an impossible hurdle (to prove innocence) for anyone,” he said, adding that DNA claims are likely to be more successful because the court can point to another culprit.
A House committee is set to discuss how the junk science law has failed to work as intended. In their subpoena for the court to block the execution warrant, the lawmakers argued that Roberson’s testimony is crucial to understanding its ineffectiveness.
Prosecutors have said the evidence in Roberson’s case has not changed significantly since his conviction. The Anderson County District Attorney’s Office did not return phone calls and voice messages from The Associated Press on Friday.
According to legal experts, Texas’ junk science law in 2013 was the first of its kind and a model for other states across the country. California, Connecticut, Michigan, Nevada, and Wyoming have similar “junk science” laws, but it has not been studied to see how successful they are in overturning death sentences.
There are many instances when prosecutors rely on inconsistent or faulty evidence during trials, and according to University of Oklahoma law professor Jim Hilbert, junk science laws can be a necessary tool to combat wrongful convictions.
Hilbert, who has written about discredited science used in criminal trials, said, “The Roberson case is a classic case that Texas law was created to address.”
“It has had a positive impact, but in such a limited way. It could do so much more.”