A Texas district judge is set to hear arguments on whether to establish a new execution date for Robert Roberson, who was convicted for the 2002 death of his two-year-old daughter, Nikki. Roberson’s legal team is challenging the original conviction, arguing that it was based on flawed science, often referred to as “junk science,” asserting that Nikki likely died of natural causes instead.
The hearing, scheduled for 10 a.m. Wednesday, was prompted by a request from the State of Texas for a new execution date, following the postponement of his previously scheduled execution on October 17, 2024. Lawmakers had intervened at that time, seeking Roberson’s testimony regarding his situation.
Roberson’s attorney, Gretchen Sween, emphasized the legal and moral flaws in setting a new execution date while a habeas petition is still pending before the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, stating, “We look forward to presenting our arguments to the court opposing the request…which has been handled by the elected District Attorney of Anderson County since 2016.”
Originally, Roberson was convicted after medical staff had diagnosed Nikki with shaken baby syndrome, but his defense team is now asserting that she suffered from undiagnosed pneumonia, rather than abusive trauma. This shift in perspective has gained traction among a coalition of lawmakers, including the lead detective from the original investigation, who question the scientific basis of the original ruling.
The Texas House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence had taken significant action by issuing a subpoena for Roberson to provide testimony just before his scheduled execution. The Texas Supreme Court subsequently paused the execution to allow the committee to evaluate these claims and hear from Roberson.
While some lawmakers and advocates for Roberson argue that the path forward should include a thorough review of new evidence supporting his innocence, certain relatives of Nikki have expressed frustration over the delays in the execution process.
The upcoming hearing may ultimately influence public perception of the Texas justice system’s handling of capital cases, especially those involving contested scientific evidence. As the legal process unfolds, it raises important questions about the standards of justice and the potential for reform in similar cases moving forward.