The Texas Supreme Court has made a significant ruling regarding the case of Robert Roberson, affirming that a legislative subpoena cannot be used to delay an execution. This decision impacts the planned execution of Roberson, who was convicted in 2003 for the murder of his two-year-old daughter, Nikki Curtis.
The death of Curtis was originally ruled as a result of “shaken baby syndrome,” a diagnosis now under growing scrutiny by medical professionals.
In an effort to delay Roberson’s execution, Texas legislators subpoenaed him to testify in October, arguing that his case warranted further investigation.
Advocates for Roberson’s innocence have argued that the shaken baby syndrome diagnosis is outdated and unreliable, suggesting that this new understanding of the medical condition could potentially exonerate him. The legislative action was part of a broader push to prevent what they believe to be an unjust execution.
However, the Texas Supreme Court’s ruling concludes that allowing such subpoenas to halt executions would be a dangerous precedent.
Texas Supreme Court Denies Delay in Robert Roberson’s Execution Despite Legislative Push
The court emphasized that using a legislative subpoena as a way to delay an execution could be misused, potentially giving lawmakers the power to indefinitely postpone death sentences in order to gather testimony. This ruling effectively puts Roberson back on track for execution, dismissing the delay tactics employed by the legislature.
Despite this, legislators, including Joe Moody and Jeff Leach, the chairs of the House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee, expressed their belief that the ruling does not mean Roberson’s execution will proceed immediately.
They maintain that the court has affirmed their right to obtain Roberson’s testimony and that they expect the Executive Branch to cooperate in this process. Their statement suggests that while the ruling prevents further delays, they can still pursue Roberson’s testimony as part of their investigation.
The ruling does delay Roberson’s execution by a minimum of three months, as the prosecuting district attorney now has to request a new execution date. This new date must be at least 90 days after the request, providing additional time for legal challenges and investigations into Roberson’s case. The case remains a point of contention, with strong opposition from both lawmakers and advocates for Roberson’s innocence.
