The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles has rejected a request for clemency for a man who on Thursday, October 17, could become the first person executed in the United States for a death linked to a diagnosis of shaken baby syndrome.
The board voted against recommending that Robert Roberson’s death sentence be commuted to life in prison or that his execution be delayed. The 57-year-old is scheduled to receive a lethal injection Thursday for the 2002 death of his 2-year-old daughter, Nikki Curtis, in Palestine, Texas .
“ Robert Roberson is absolutely innocent. Not only do we know that the evidence against him has been disproven, but we also know medically why his daughter died: she suffered from two types of fatal pneumonia,” Vanessa Potkin, an attorney for The Innocence Project , said , according to CBS .
After the board’s decision, her attorney, Gretchen Sween, claimed Roberson wouldn’t be on death row if not for her autism, alleging that emergency room staff misinterpreted her behavior as guilt the night of her daughter’s death. She asked Gov. Greg Abbott to grant a 30-day stay to allow a court to review new medical and scientific evidence showing Nikki died of natural causes and not abuse.
“The criminal justice system has gravely failed Mr. Roberson, and what is most shocking is that it has yet to correct itself, despite Texas lawmakers recognizing the problem of wrongful convictions based on discredited ‘science’ more than a decade ago,” Sween said.
According to The Texas Tribune , Brian Wharton , the lead Palestine police detective who investigated the girl’s death, expressed remorse for his role in Roberson’s conviction. “Don’t make my mistake. Listen to Robert,” he told the committee before it took its vote.
Doug Deason , a prominent Texas Republican donor , also advocated for stopping the execution. “I believe he is innocent,” he said in a post on X, the Houston Chronicle reported . The conservative activist has been in direct communication with James Sullivan , the general counsel to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott , seeking support for Roberson.
The credibility of the conviction has been questioned because, according to the lawyers for the convicted man, it was based on faulty and outdated scientific evidence regarding shaken baby syndrome . This condition is diagnosed when a child suffers a severe brain injury caused by violent shaking or impact, the lawyers for the convicted man explained.
Along with the attorneys, more than 80 state lawmakers have asked the pardon board and Gov. Abbott to halt the execution. A spokesman for the governor has not commented on what the official’s final position will be, but the case has gained public attention, The Associated Press reported .
In order for Abbott to grant clemency, he must first receive a recommendation from the pardon board. However, he has the option of granting a 30-day reprieve without such a recommendation, something that has rarely happened during his tenure, with only one execution halted in 2018, ABC News reported.
The possibility of halting the execution has been diminished by recent legal decisions, with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals rejecting Roberson’s requests for a stay, a move upheld again on Wednesday. Additionally, an East Texas judge refused to halt the lethal injection, The New York Times reported .
While not denying the severity of injuries from child abuse , Roberson’s supporters maintain that doctors misdiagnosed Curtis’ injuries.
On the other hand, the Anderson County District Attorney’s Office , which brought the case against Roberson, argued in court documents that after a hearing in 2022, a judge dismissed theories that attributed Curtis’ injuries to pneumonia and other illnesses. The American Academy of Pediatrics and other medical institutions defend the diagnosis of the syndrome, reiterating its validity and the exhaustive protocol that doctors follow to determine them, as mentioned by The Guardian .
The Robert Roberson case has brought into focus the debate on the use of forensic science in death penalty cases, as well as highlighting the role of the judiciary in reviewing convictions based on old scientific evidence.
