Last week Robert Roberson, convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of his 2-year-old daughter, won a reprieve from the Texas Supreme Court at the request of a bipartisan coalition of Texas state representatives who want to determine whether he was allowed to use a legal defense they had created. His case needs re-examination, with the possibility of his exoneration, not only to save his life, if warranted but to preserve the death penalty for other cases as well.
Roberson was convicted of killing his daughter through physical abuse. But “Shaken Baby Syndrome,” from which his daughter allegedly died, is considered “junk science.” Texas law says that one who is convicted on the basis of “junk science” has the right to contest his conviction. Democratic and Republican Texas lawmakers alike want to determine whether Roberson was allowed to use the “junk science” defense to appeal his case, and if not, why not. To that end, they have subpoenaed Roberson to testify before a Texas House committee and they have secured a temporary reprieve from the Texas Supreme Court so that Roberson can do so.
But once Roberson has completed his testimony he can be resentenced to death and executed next year. And this could be tragic: Since his conviction in 2003, other evidence which could raise doubts about his guilt has come to light as well. There may be some evidence that his daughter died of natural causes—apparently pneumonia—and a mental examination of Roberson conducted after his conviction revealed he has a form of autism making him unable to show emotions otherwise appropriate to circumstances. This is significant because witnesses at his trial testified he had shown no remorse or concern for his daughter, and prosecutors and jurors concluded that his apparent lack of emotion was a sign of guilt. Now his defenders maintain he showed no emotion not because he felt none, but because he had no ability to show what he felt. The lead investigator of the case in 2003 now maintains he was wrong to conclude that Roberson was a murderer, and is now among Roberson’s most vocal defenders.
The fairest course of action, given the mounting evidence of Roberson’s possible innocence, is to grant him a new trial wherein testimony on the lack of reliability of a “shaken baby syndrome” diagnosis, as well as alternative theories concerning his daughter’s death and his own autism too, can be more thoroughly investigated. A new look at the new evidence is necessary to reduce the possibility that an innocent man may be put to death.
But the ongoing examination of this case is not only necessary to save Roberson’s life (if he’s innocent), but to preserve the integrity of the Texas criminal justice system and especially the use of the death penalty as well. There are some crimes so heinous that execution is the only appropriate response. The execution of Timothy McVeigh was the best outcome of his case, while the commutation of the death sentences of Charles Manson and his followers for killing Sharon Tate and others was a gross miscarriage of justice (compounding the injustice is the fact that one of the murderers has been paroled and released from prison).
However, if the death penalty is to be retained, it must be used only when it is applied to those whose guilt are not in any way in doubt. Nothing will undermine support for the death penalty more and lead to its abolition than the execution of those later determined to have been not guilty of the crimes for which they were convicted and executed. All doubts about a criminal suspect’s guilt—especially in capital cases—must be resolved in favor of the suspect.
So the Democratic and Republican state lawmakers—including both opponents and supporters of the death penalty—are to be commended for their work to better understand the complexities of Roberson’s case. It is only to be hoped that they will discover the truth and thereby let justice be done, whatever form justice in this case ultimately takes.
Malcolm L. Cross has lived in Stephenville since 1987 and taught politics and government at Tarleton for 36 years, retiring in 2023. His political and civic activities include service on the Stephenville City Council (2000-2014) and on the Erath County Republican Executive Committee (1990-2024). He was Mayor pro-tem of Stephenville from 2008 to 2014. He has served on the Board of Directors of the Stephenville
Economic Development Authority since 2018 and as chair of the Erath County Appraisal District’s Appraisal Review Board since 2015. He is also a member of the Stephenville Rotary Club, the Board of Vestry of St. Luke’s Episcopal Church, and the Executive Committee of the Boy Scouts’ Pecan Valley District. Views expressed in this column are his and do not reflect those of The Flash as a whole.
Be the first to comment