Texas’ junk science law is getting another look over Robert Roberson’s case
AUSTIN, Texas– When Robert Roberson was executed stopped abruptly in Texas, it was the result of a subpoena ordering him to testify about a legal safety net that both Republicans and Democrats say should have saved him long ago: the Texas junk science law.
The 2013 law allows a person convicted of a crime to seek help if the evidence used against them is no longer credible. At the time, it was praised by the legislature as a unique future-proof solution to wrongful convictions based on flawed science. But Roberson’s supporters say his case highlights flaws in the justice system, where the law has been weakened by deliberate misinterpretations by the state’s highest criminal court.
On Monday, Roberson will testify before members of a state House committee, four days after he did so scheduled to die by lethal injection.
“He has seen how the prosecution has really stood in the way of bringing new science forward,” Democratic state Rep. John Bucy told The Associated Press. “I think his first-hand account will be helpful.”
Roberson, 57, was convicted of murder in the death of his 2-year-old daughter, Nikki Curtis, in Palestine, Texas in 2002. Prosecutors alleged he violently shook his daughter, causing fatal head injuries. A bipartisan group of lawmakers, medical experts and the former lead prosecutor in the case have thrown their support behind Roberson, saying his conviction is based on flawed science.
In his clemency petition to Republican Governor Greg Abbott, several medical professionals wrote that Roberson’s conviction was based on outdated scientific evidence and that Curtis likely died of complications from severe pneumonia.
Shaken baby syndrome — now referred to as abusive head trauma — was a popular misdiagnosis at the time that has been largely debunked, according to Roberson’s attorneys.
Courts have rejected numerous attempts by his lawyers to hear new evidence in the case, and the Texas parole board voted not to recommend clemency to Roberson, a necessary step for Abbott to delay the execution. The governor has not commented on Roberson’s case.
No one facing execution has had their sentences overturned since the junk science law was enacted in 2013, according to a report by the civil rights group Texas Defender Service.
Over the past ten years, 74 applications have been submitted and assessed under the junk science law. A third of the applications were submitted by people facing the death penalty. All were unsuccessful.
Of the claims resulting in compensation, almost three-quarters were convictions related to DNA evidence, despite this accounting for less than half of all claims.
Legal experts suggest the reason for this is because the Texas Criminal Court of Appeals misinterprets the law and judges applicants based on their innocence rather than on evidence.
“In practice, the CCA has a much higher standard than what lawmakers wrote,” said Burke Butler, executive director of Texas Defender Service. “It (proving innocence) is a virtually impossible barrier for anyone to meet,” she said, adding that DNA claims are likely to be more successful because the court can identify another perpetrator.
A House committee will discuss how the junk science law has failed to work as intended. In their summons to block the court’s execution order, lawmakers argued that Roberson’s testimony is essential 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 Office did not respond to phone calls and voice messages from The Associated Press on Friday.
Texas’ junk science law was the first of its kind in 2013 and was a model for other states across the country, legal experts said. California, Connecticut, Michigan, Nevada and Wyoming have similar “junk science” statutes, but no studies have examined how successful they are in overturning death penalty convictions.
There are many cases in which prosecutors rely on inconsistent or flawed evidence at trial, and junk science laws can be a necessary tool to combat wrongful convictions, according to University of Oklahoma law professor Jim Hilbert.
“The Roberson case is a classic case that Texas law was designed to address,” said Hilbert, who has written about discredited science used in criminal trials.
“It has had a positive impact, but in such a limited way. So much more is possible.”
___
Lathan is a staff member for the Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.