In a significant turn of events, the scheduled execution of Robert Roberson in Texas was unexpectedly halted last week, drawing attention to a law that has sparked bipartisan support but remains mired in controversy: the state’s junk science law, the Associated Press reports.
Enacted in 2013, the law was designed to offer relief to individuals convicted based on discredited or faulty scientific evidence. While it was initially lauded as a landmark achievement in criminal justice reform, Roberson’s case highlights the ongoing struggles to apply the law effectively and underscores concerns that the judicial system may have weakened its intended purpose.
Robert Roberson, convicted of murdering his 2-year-old daughter, Nikki Curtis, in 2002, is at the heart of this debate. Prosecutors argued that Roberson caused his daughter’s fatal head trauma by violently shaking her—a diagnosis often associated with the now largely discredited “shaken baby syndrome,” also referred to as abusive head trauma. Despite medical experts, legal professionals, and even the case’s former lead prosecutor voicing doubts over the validity of the original evidence, Roberson’s conviction has withstood repeated challenges.
The Texas junk science law was introduced to address such cases, where outdated or flawed science had influenced the outcome of trials. The law was hailed as a unique safeguard against wrongful convictions, aiming to allow convicted individuals to present new evidence if the science used to convict them had since been discredited. For many, the case of Robert Roberson seemed like a textbook example of the kind of miscarriage of justice that the law was intended to rectify.
However, the law has faced serious challenges in practice. In the decade since its implementation, it has failed to overturn the death sentences of any of the individuals who applied for relief. Of the 74 applications filed under the law, all from individuals seeking to overturn convictions based on now-discredited evidence, none of the death penalty cases have been successful. This includes Roberson’s case, which has seen multiple appeals denied despite new medical evidence suggesting his daughter’s death may have been due to complications from pneumonia rather than violent shaking.
The growing frustration over the law’s limited success has culminated in a state House committee inquiry, which will include testimony from Roberson himself. Lawmakers from both parties have expressed concerns that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA), the state’s highest criminal court, is applying the law in a way that undermines its purpose. Critics argue that the court has imposed a higher standard than what the legislation intended, forcing applicants to prove their innocence rather than focusing on the credibility of the evidence used to convict them. Burke Butler, executive director of the Texas Defender Service, has pointed out that proving innocence—a much higher bar—is nearly impossible in many cases, especially when faulty scientific testimony was the primary issue.
The Roberson case will be a focal point for the inquiry. His supporters argue that his execution should have been stayed long ago based on the law’s framework, given the outdated science used in his trial. A growing number of experts now believe that the science behind shaken baby syndrome is unreliable, further casting doubt on Roberson’s conviction.
Texas’ junk science law was the first of its kind in the United States and has served as a model for similar statutes in states like California, Connecticut, and Michigan. However, the limitations highlighted by the Roberson case suggest a need for reassessment of how such laws are interpreted and enforced. Legal experts argue that the law has had a positive impact but only in a limited capacity, often being applied successfully in DNA-related cases but failing to address cases involving other types of flawed forensic evidence.
Prosecutors, meanwhile, maintain that the evidence in Roberson’s case has not changed significantly since his conviction, and they have resisted efforts to reopen the case. The Anderson County District Attorney’s office has not publicly responded to the recent developments, but their opposition reflects the broader challenges faced by individuals trying to overturn convictions based on outdated or faulty science.
As Texas lawmakers prepare to review the efficacy of the junk science law, many see the Roberson case as a critical test of the law’s potential to correct wrongful convictions. The outcome of this case—and whether or not the state can realign its legal system to better handle claims based on discredited science—could have wide-reaching implications for both death penalty cases and the broader criminal justice system.
Roberson’s testimony before the committee is expected to shed light on his decades-long fight and on how the legal system has dealt with his appeals for reconsideration of the evidence against him.
