Latest news with #RobertRoberson
Yahoo
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Texas lawmakers pass bill to improve state's junk science law
The Brief House lawmakers approved a bill to clarify Texas' junk science law. If approved, low-income defendants would be entitled to an attorney and the Court of Criminal Appeals would be required to issue a written opinion on denied appeals. Critics of Texas' junk science law say that it isn't working as intended with its current language. AUSTIN, Texas - The Texas House on Thursday approved changes to the state's "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 credible. On Thursday, lawmakers advanced a bill that would make changes to the law that were suggested during an out-of-session House committee meeting. What we know Under House Bill 115, low-income defendants would be entitled to an attorney in junk science appeals. The bill would also require the Court of Criminal Appeals to issue a written opinion when a junk science appeal is denied. The bill would also require the court to consider cases that might not meet procedural requirements. A 2024 report from civil rights group Texas Defender Service showed that 38% of appeals to the court citing junk science were rejected on a procedural basis. The bar for granting relief would also be lowered to allow relief if there's a reasonable likelihood that the conviction was based on discredited science. Critics of the law say its current wording essentially forces the convicted person to prove complete innocence. The changes were among those sparked both by the Texas Defender report and the death row case of Robert Roberson. What they're saying "In reality, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals's implementation of the statute has shown inconsistency in application, a disregard for discredited scientific methods, a heavy investigative burden for people seeking relief (especially people without counsel), and a striking absence of relief in capital cases—meaning that potentially innocent people will be executed," Texas Defender said in their report. What's next The bill now heads to the Senate, but with the legislative session winding down, it is unknown if it will be heard. Texas lawmakers made headlines in October after they petitioned to delay Roberson's execution, stating the science behind his execution doesn't hold up. Roberson was convicted of killing his 2-year-old daughter in Palestine, Texas in 2002. He took her to the emergency room with a high fever, where medical staff determined her condition was consistent with shaken baby syndrome. Roberson's attorneys have challenged that diagnosis, calling it "junk science." They say Nikki died from natural causes, likely undiagnosed pneumonia. A coalition of lawmakers and the lead detective on the case have argued the science supporting Roberson's death sentence doesn't hold up. The Texas House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence issued a subpoena on the day before Roberson's scheduled execution on Oct. 17 for the death row inmate to testify at a hearing about his case. The Supreme Court paused the execution that night to review the committee's request. An opinion from the Texas Supreme Court in November said that the committee should be allowed to hear his testimony, as long as a subpoena does not block an inevitable execution. Roberson did not appear at subsequent House committee meetings after the attorney general's office opposed the efforts to bring him to the Capitol building. The Office of the Attorney General told the State Supreme Court that doing so would present security and logistical concerns. Some relatives of the 2-year-old have criticized lawmakers for delaying Roberson's execution. The backstory Texas' junk science law was the first of its kind in 2013 and a model for other states across the country, according to legal experts. California, Connecticut, Michigan, Nevada and Wyoming have similar "junk science" statutes, but it has not been studied how successful they are at overturning death penalty convictions. The 2013 law allows a person convicted of a crime to seek relief if the evidence used against them is no longer credible. At the time, it was hailed by the Legislature as a uniquely future-proof solution to wrongful convictions based on faulty science. No one facing execution has had their sentence overturned since the junk science law was enacted in 2013, according to the Texas Defender Service report. In the last 10 years, 74 applications have been filed and ruled on under the junk science law. A third of applications were submitted by people facing the death penalty. All of them were unsuccessful. Of the applications that led to relief, nearly three-quarters were for convictions related to DNA evidence, despite making up less than half of all applications. The Source Information on House Bill 115 comes from the May 14, 2025, House session. Information on Texas' junk science law comes from previous FOX 4 coverage. Information on the rates of granted relief comes from a report by civil rights group Texas Defender Service. Backstory on Robert Roberson comes from previous FOX 4 coverage.
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Proposal to enhance Texas' pioneering junk science law approved by Texas House
Over a decade ago, the Texas Legislature passed a groundbreaking law to provide justice when the scientific evidence for a criminal conviction has changed or been discredited. But in a report examining appeals ruled upon in the decade since, the Texas Defender Service found last year that the so-called junk science law 'is not operating as the Texas Legislature intended,' and that the courts were applying a burden of proof that made it nearly impossible for appellants to meet. For some lawmakers, Texas death row inmate Robert Roberson became the face of that failure. On Wednesday, the Texas House sought to rectify those shortcomings. Lawmakers preliminarily approved, 118 to 10, House Bill 115 — legislation that would codify a number of recommendations advocates made to ensure the junk science law is working as intended. 'I do want to stress that this is a critical bill, and would appreciate your favorable consideration,' Rep. David Cook, R-Mansfield and author of the bill, said during a late-night committee hearing last month. The measure, which must pass another vote in the House as a formality, does not have a companion in the Senate, making its path to law unclear. The proposal emerged out of a contentious interim period of the Legislature last year, during which the House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee confronted Roberson's case, seen by some lawmakers as the face of Texas' failure to properly implement the junk science law. The argument for Roberson's innocence became a political lightning rod, as committee members took extraordinary steps to delay his October execution while Gov. Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton pushed back and stood behind the conviction. Roberson was convicted of capital murder in 2003 for the death of his 2-year-old daughter Nikki, who was diagnosed with shaken baby syndrome. He was one of the first death row inmates to have his conviction set for further review under the junk science law in 2016, when the Court of Criminal Appeals directed a lower court to take a second look at his case. But in 2023, after the state argued that the science had not changed that much and a trial court agreed, the Court of Criminal Appeals upheld Roberson's conviction and set an Oct. 17, 2024 execution date. Lawmakers, concerned that the courts had not meaningfully engaged with the evidence and properly applied the junk science law, managed to force a stay of execution in October. Roberson's execution date has not yet been reset, and he has a pending appeal. Still, proponents of HB 115 said the bill was meant to address broader deficiencies in the law — regardless of its application to Roberson's case. If passed, its provisions would not go into effect until December 1. The junk science law — Article 11.073 in Texas' criminal code — meant to provide a way for convicted people to obtain new trials if they can show that the underlying scientific evidence in their conviction was flawed. Lawmakers overwhelmingly approved the bill in 2013 after two failed attempts to do so. 'It stood as a commitment to Texans that science in our criminal trials was not just a sword of the state, but also a shield for the wrongfully convicted and the unfairly prosecuted,' Chase Baumgartner, an attorney at the Innocence Project of Texas, testified to the House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee last month. 'House Bill 115 reaffirms that commitment and shores up where our current law has fallen short.' The measure would address many of the interim committee's concerns with the law. It would entitle low-income defendants to an attorney in junk science appeals and require the state's highest criminal court to issue a written opinion when denying a junk science appeal. It would also allow the court to consider junk science appeals even if they do not meet certain procedural requirements, a provision meant to address a finding that the Court of Criminal Appeals rejected almost 40% of petitions on procedural grounds, without considering the merits of the claims. It would also clarify that the junk science law requires appellants simply to show that their conviction was based on discredited science — not to prove their innocence. The bill changes the standard of proof to a 'reasonable likelihood' that the evidence 'could have affected' a person's conviction or sentence. That is a lower bar for convicted people to clear than the law's current standard, which says that 'on the preponderance of evidence,' the defendant 'would not have been convicted' based on the debunked science. Critics said that that was virtually the same standard required to prove 'actual innocence' — a difficult case to make, especially for people behind bars. 'The current standard has been interpreted by the Court of Criminal Appeals to essentially require the elimination of any rational basis for the conviction, which is the legal actual innocence standard,' Burke Butler, executive director of the Texas Defender Service, told the committee last month. 'This is not at all what legislators intended when they originally passed the law, and for various reasons, that standard is actually impossible for most innocent people to meet.' And the bill would extend the junk science law to accept relevant evidence that was 'not reasonably available' to the defendant at trial, and that 'tends to negate' scientific evidence 'relied on by the state' at trial. In its report, the Texas Defender Services found that no one on death row has successfully used the junk science law to obtain a new trial. The report also found that the Court of Criminal Appeals had applied a higher standard of proof than required by the law, rejected a significant portion of appeals on procedural grounds and produced a 'pervasive lack' of written opinions explaining its rationale, Butler said. 'No innocent person should ever serve out a prison sentence without having their case considered on the merits,' she said. 'The fixes in HB 115 would ensure that innocent people convicted based on junk science have a genuine pathway for relief.' First round of TribFest speakers announced! Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Maureen Dowd; U.S. Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-San Antonio; Fort Worth Mayor Mattie Parker; U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff, D-California; and U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Dallas are taking the stage Nov. 13–15 in Austin. Get your tickets today!
CBS News
20-02-2025
- CBS News
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.
