Death row inmate Robert Roberson files new appeal, citing misdiagnosis and new evidence
AUSTIN — Death row inmate Robert Roberson has filed a new appeal with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the state's highest criminal court, presenting what his defense claims are new legal and scientific developments aimed at overturning his death sentence.
Roberson was convicted of capital murder in 2003 for the death of his 2-year-old daughter, Nikki. His legal team continues to argue that she was misdiagnosed with shaken baby syndrome. The appeal challenges this diagnosis, including testimony from experts suggesting that the child died from severe viral and bacterial pneumonia, exacerbated by prescribed dangerous medications, rather than abuse.
Roberson's defense contends that he has spent 22 years on death row as an innocent man. They also highlight that Roberson, who dropped out of school after the 9th grade as a special education student, has Autism Spectrum Disorder.
"There was no homicide, only the tragic death of his very ill little girl," Roberson's attorneys said.
Roberson was scheduled to be executed in October 2024. However, the Texas Supreme Court ultimately stayed it, after state lawmakers became involved, to allow for further testimony and consideration of new evidence.
His legal team seeks for him to be declared innocent, granted a new trial, or have the case sent back to the district court for further fact-finding.
According to his defense, the new information demonstrates that no rational juror would find Roberson guilty of capital murder, as the verdict was based on outdated scientific and medical evidence. They claim that police and prosecutors rushed to judgment, leading to his wrongful conviction under the discredited shaken baby syndrome hypothesis.
New expert opinions find the shaken baby diagnosis unsound and assert that the autopsy ruling the child's death a homicide was flawed, his legal team said. Since 1992, at least 40 parents and caregivers have been exonerated after wrongful shaken baby convictions, according to his defense team. They also cite an October 2024 Texas Court of Criminal Appeals decision overturning a similar shaken baby conviction out of Dallas County.
Roberson has garnered bipartisan support from Texas lawmakers and various advocacy groups.
Meanwhile, Roberson's execution has not been rescheduled.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Yahoo
Texas Supreme Court Greenlights Paxton's Probe Of Illegal Alien Shelter
(Texas Scorecard) – The Texas Supreme Court has ruled that Attorney General Ken Paxton can investigate and seek judicial remedies against Annunciation House, a Catholic non-profit that operates several homeless shelters throughout the El Paso area allegedly benefitting illegal aliens. Published Friday morning, the Texas Supreme Court opinion states that Paxton has the authority to file a quo warranto action challenging Annunciation House's right to do business in Texas. If Paxton's accusations are accurate, it could lead to the closure of Annunciation House. In February 2024, Paxton requested access to the organization's records after accusing it of aiding and sheltering illegal aliens. His request was denied. This was followed by an El Paso district judge's ruling that further blocked Paxton's request. Paxton appealed the dismissal of his lawsuit to the Texas Supreme Court in July 2024, and the court heard oral arguments in the case earlier this year. Justice Evan Young, who delivered the opinion, concluded that there is no lawful reason to bar Paxton from filing a quo warranto action or requesting records in this situation. Quo warrantos have a long historical standing in both common law and in the Texas Constitution. 'We conclude that the trial court erred in its constitutional holdings,' wrote Young in the opinion. 'We likewise conclude that the court's related injunctions, which prevent the attorney general from even filing a quo warranto action, were premature at best.' Additionally, the Supreme Court rejected arguments from Annunciation House that Texas law limits the attorney general's authority and that the demand of immediate access to records is unconstitutional. Young further stated that the Supreme Court's decision does not express an opinion on or discuss questions regarding Paxton's accusations against Annunciation House, but leaves them to be determined in the lower courts through usual legal processes. 'The Supreme Court was right to right to respect the AG's authority to investigate and and they were right to withhold judgment about any the substance of the case, which will be determined in due course,' attorney Tony McDonald told Texas Scorecard. 'Today is a great victory for Texas, secure borders, and the rule of law,' said Paxton. 'Annunciation House has flagrantly violated our laws by harboring illegal aliens and assisting them to enter further into our country. This cannot be allowed to continue, and I will do everything in my power to stop them and any other NGO breaking our laws.' Annunciation House declined to comment on the case at this time.
Yahoo
31-05-2025
- Yahoo
Texas Supreme Court gives initial win to Paxton in migrant shelter case
(The Texas Tribune) — Attorney General Ken Paxton can proceed with his investigation of an El Paso migrant shelter network he has accused of violating state law by helping undocumented migrants, the Texas Supreme Court ruled Friday. The ruling does not weigh in on the merits of the case, but says the district court erred in blocking Paxton from obtaining documents and getting an injunction to close the shelter. The case began in February 2024 when the attorney general's office demanded documents from the shelter, Annunciation House, related to its work with immigrants. Annunciation House, which opened its first shelter at a Catholic church nearly 50 years ago, primarily serves people who have been processed and released into the U.S. by federal immigration officials. The shelter's director, Ruben Garcia, communicates regularly with Border Patrol and other federal officials to help find shelter for immigrants who have nowhere else to go while their cases are processed. Here's what you need to know: Officials from the attorney general's Consumer Protection Division arrived at the migrant shelter's door on Feb. 7 and demanded a trove of documents within a day. Annunciation House sued the attorney general's office to delay the release of the records, asking a judge to determine which documents shelter officials were legally allowed to release. Paxton's office filed a countersuit to shutter the shelter network. The attorney general's office claimed the shelter was violating state law by helping people suspected of being undocumented immigrants. The investigation was one of more than 12 instances identified last year by The Texas Tribune and ProPublica in which Paxton's office used the state's consumer protection laws to investigate organizations whose work conflicts in some way with his political views or the views of his conservative base. At least four other organizations that work with immigrants have been targeted. An El Paso judge in July denied Paxton's effort to shut down Annunciation House. State District Judge Francisco Dominguez ruled that the state's claim, 'even if accepted as true, does not establish a violation of those provisions.' He also ruled that the state laws are preempted by federal law and therefore 'unenforceable.' Paxton's office appealed the decision directly to the all-Republican Texas Supreme Court. The appeal drew five letters to the court from outside parties. Among them were two in support of Annunciation House filed by El Paso County and First Liberty Institute, a Texas nonprofit that champions religious freedom. America First Legal Foundation, an organization started by a former Trump administration official to advocate for conservative causes, filed a letter in support of Paxton's office. Paxton's office, which has argued that the shelter network should be closed for violating state laws against human smuggling and operating a stash house, told the court that Annunciation House should be shuttered to send a message to other similar organizations. Ryan Baasch of the attorney general's office argued that Annunciation House 'knowingly and purposely' shelters undocumented persons. 'If all the state is allowed to do is obtain an injunction that says, 'Don't do this unlawful act again,' there's absolutely no deterrent effect,' Baasch said in response to a question from a justice about why an injunction would be insufficient. When one of the justices asked whether the state wanted to deter organizations from exercising their religious activity, Baasch responded: 'Not all, your honor. We want to deter organizations from knowingly and deliberately sheltering illegally present aliens.' Annunciation House's lawyers have characterized the state's arguments as 'utter nonsense,' arguing that Paxton's efforts violate the First Amendment, which guarantees the right to free speech, association and religion, and the Fourth Amendment, which offers protection against unreasonable search and seizure. Annunciation House lawyer Amy Warr argued that most of the people who the shelter helps have been processed and released by federal immigration authorities while their cases are pending. She said other federal authorities, like the FBI, sometimes bring undocumented people to the shelter who they need as witnesses in criminal cases. 'Law enforcement knows we are there, knows that we house undocumented people,' Warr said. 'If they want to pick somebody up, they come with a warrant and they get the person — or they wait outside until the person comes out. They have full means to do this.' Annunciation House gave five minutes of its oral arguments to First Liberty Institute, a religious freedom organization. Elizabeth Kiernan argued on behalf of the group that Annunciation House's work is motivated by the group's Catholic faith. 'The Catholic church has claimed Annunciation House as one of its own,' Kiernan said. 'If the (Texas Religious Freedom and Restoration Act) protects anything, it protects this religious charity against outright closure.' In a unanimous opinion, with one justice recused, the Texas Supreme Court found that the district court had erred in granting Annunciation House a permanent inunction against records requests from the Attorney General, and in denying the state's request for a permanent injunction. Should Paxton's office ask for another injunction, 'the trial court must assess it in light of our holdings,' the justices wrote. But they made clear that they were not weighing in on the strength of Paxton's arguments or his chances of winning this case outright. 'It is too early for us, or for any court, to express a view about the merits of the underlying issues,' the unanimous opinion reads. 'Perhaps the case will terminate quickly based on evidentiary or legal grounds; perhaps it will go to trial… We resolve only what we must to dispose of today's appeal.' The case will return now to the district 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
30-05-2025
- Yahoo
Texas Supreme Court sides with AG Ken Paxton in efforts to get records from El Paso's Annunciation House
EL PASO, Texas (EL PASO MATTERS) — Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton can move forward with his efforts to gather records from El Paso's Annunciation House to investigate his claims that the migrant shelter network was harboring undocumented immigrants, the Texas Supreme Court ruled Friday. 'We conclude that the trial court erred in its constitutional holdings. We likewise conclude that the court's related injunctions, which prevent the attorney general from even filing a quo warranto action, were premature at best. Our primary holding is that the attorney general has the constitutional authority to file his proposed quo warranto action, which simply allows the usual litigation process to unfold,' the state's highest civil court said in an 8-0 decision. Quo warranto is a centuries old legal term, with roots in English common law, that requires a person or organization to show what authority they have for exercising a right or ability they hold. In this case, Paxton is challenging Annunciation House's right to do business in Texas. The ruling noted that this is the first time in more than a century that the Texas Supreme Court ruled on a quo warranto proceeding. Ruben Garcia, founder and executive director of Annunciation, told El Paso Matters Friday that the organization is looking at the full ruling and couldn't comment until they have a complete understanding of all its implications. The court overturned a July 2024 ruling by 205th District Judge Francisco Dominguez of El Paso, who ruled that the 'outrageous and intolerable actions' by the Attorney General's Office were unlawful and relied on unconstitutional statutes. Paxton's office appealed the decision directly to the Texas Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments in January. Paxton and all the justices on the Texas Supreme Court are Republicans. Dominguez is a Democrat. Justice James Sullivan, who was appointed to the high court last year by Gov. Greg Abbott, did not participate in the decision. Supreme Court justices aren't required to explain reasons for recusing from cases. Annunciation House says it has operated in compliance with all laws and in accordance with Catholic teachings. Federal immigration agencies have long worked with the organization, which has operated for more than 40 years, to provide care for migrants after they are released by federal authorities. The shelter network said Paxton's request would give his office access to confidential records, and violated Annunciation House's religious freedom. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
