Robert Roberson, a Texas death row inmate, is scheduled to testify on Monday before a committee of the State House following the postponement of his execution last week in a contentious shaken baby murder case.
A subpoena for his testimony, issued through a novel legal maneuver, halted his execution just before it was set to occur on Thursday evening. The Texas Supreme Court determined that the subpoena raised legal questions regarding the separation of powers that required resolution.
While the Texas House and Mr. Roberson's legal team hoped for his in-person appearance before the Legislature’s committee on jurisprudence, the Texas attorney general's office stated that Mr. Roberson would only be available to testify via video conference from prison, citing “public safety” concerns.
The Texas Supreme Court ruled that as long as Mr. Roberson could provide testimony in response to the subpoena, it would not intervene in the dispute regarding the format of his testimony. Consequently, Mr. Roberson's appearance is likely to occur via video conference, although negotiations on the matter are ongoing.
Mr. Roberson's attorneys have contended that his autism, diagnosed after his conviction, would significantly limit the assessment of his credibility through video testimony. They also expressed concerns that remote questioning without his lawyers present would compromise his access to legal counsel.
The case has garnered extensive national attention, with supporters—including a majority of the Republican-controlled Texas House and notable figures—raising doubts about the conviction, which was based in part on findings related to shaken baby syndrome.
His legal team has argued that the death of his 2-year-old daughter, Nikki, in 2002 was attributable to pneumonia and the effects of medication, rather than shaking. They also suggested that Mr. Roberson’s autism was misinterpreted during the investigation, where his lack of visible emotion was viewed as indicative of guilt.
The state maintains that the girl’s death resulted from both shaking and blunt-force injuries. They argue that recent doubts about the reliability of shaken baby syndrome diagnoses do not alter the evidence in Mr. Roberson's case.
Mr. Roberson has faced multiple denied appeals from the state’s Court of Criminal Appeals, and his clemency request was rejected by the Board of Pardons and Paroles. Governor Greg Abbott did not intervene to halt the execution as it approached on Thursday.
The U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up the case. Justice Sonia Sotomayor expressed concerns about the application of shaken baby syndrome evidence in Mr. Roberson's situation, suggesting that the execution should be paused to avoid a potential miscarriage of justice.
Members of the Texas House, responding to perceived injustices in Mr. Roberson's case, took the unusual step of calling him to testify, which ultimately delayed the execution.
However, this maneuver does not reopen Mr. Roberson's case. The Texas Supreme Court clarified that its involvement was limited to addressing questions about the legislative and executive branches' powers concerning the subpoena and the pending execution.
For now, the courts are not reconsidering the conviction or any new evidence in Mr. Roberson's case. Nevertheless, the specifics of his case are expected to be discussed during his testimony on Monday, as lawmakers seek to evaluate the sufficiency of state laws.
Texas was among the first states to enact a so-called junk science law, allowing for the reconsideration of convictions based on advancements in scientific understanding of evidence.
Mr. Roberson's legal team and the House members have asserted that this law should apply to his case, as the medical evidence previously used to diagnose shaken baby syndrome in his daughter is no longer deemed sufficient for such a diagnosis.
While the Court of Criminal Appeals applied the junk science law to another shaken baby case earlier this month, requiring a new trial, it concluded that the law did not apply in Mr. Roberson's situation, partly because the record indicated that his conviction was not based solely on evidence of shaking.