Texas’ junk science law is being re-examined in the Robert Roberson case

AUSTIN, Texas – When Robert Roberson’s execution was abruptly halted in Texas, it was because of a subpoena requiring him to testify about a legal backstop that both Republicans and Democrats say should have saved him long ago: the Texas one Junk science law.

The 2013 law allows a person convicted of a crime to claim compensation if the evidence used against them is no longer credible. At the time, it was hailed by lawmakers as a uniquely future-proof solution to wrongful convictions based on flawed scientific evidence. But Roberson’s supporters say his case highlights flaws in the justice system, where the law has been weakened by deliberate misinterpretations by the state’s highest criminal court.

Roberson is scheduled to testify before members of a House committee on Monday, four days after he was scheduled to die by lethal injection.

“He saw how much the prosecution stood in the way of advancing new scientific knowledge,” Democratic state Rep. John Bucy told The Associated Press. “I think his first-hand account will be helpful.”

Roberson, 57, was convicted of murdering his 2-year-old daughter Nikki Curtis in 2002 in Palestine, Texas. Prosecutors alleged he violently shook his daughter back and forth, causing a fatal head injury. A bipartisan group of lawmakers, medical experts and the former lead prosecutor in the case have rallied behind Roberson, saying his conviction was based on flawed science.

In his appeal to Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, several medical experts wrote that Roberson’s conviction was based on outdated scientific evidence and that Curtis likely died as a result of severe pneumonia.

According to Roberson’s lawyers, shaken baby syndrome – now known as abusive head trauma – was a common misdiagnosis at the time that was largely debunked.

Courts have rejected numerous attempts by his lawyers to hear new evidence in the case, and the Texas Parole Board voted not to recommend Roberson’s pardon, a necessary step for Abbott to stay the execution. The governor has not commented on Roberson’s case.

Since the junk science law was passed in 2013, no one facing execution has had their sentence overturned, according to a report by the civil rights group Texas Defender Service.

In the last 10 years, 74 applications have been filed and decided under the Junk Science Act. A third of the applications were filed by people facing the death penalty. All were unsuccessful.

Of the applications that resulted in an appeal, almost three-quarters involved convictions involving DNA evidence, although they accounted for less than half of all applications.

Legal experts believe this is because the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals misinterprets the law and judges applicants based on their innocence rather than the evidence.

“In practice, the CCA applies a much higher standard than the legislature required,” said Burke Butler, executive director of the Texas Defender Service. “Proving innocence is not an almost impossible hurdle for anyone,” she said, adding that DNA claims are likely to be more successful because the court can point to a different perpetrator.

A House committee will discuss why the junk science law didn’t work as intended. In their summons to block the court’s execution order, the lawmakers argued that Roberson’s testimony was crucial to understanding his ineffectiveness.

Prosecutors have said the evidence in Roberson’s case has not changed significantly since his conviction. The Anderson County District Attorney’s Office did not respond to phone calls and voicemails from The Associated Press on Friday.

Legal experts say Texas’ junk science law was the first of its kind in 2013 and a model for other states across the country. California, Connecticut, Michigan, Nevada and Wyoming have similar “junk science” laws, but there has been no study of how successful they are at overturning death sentences.

According to Jim Hilbert, a law professor at the University of Oklahoma, prosecutors often rely on inconsistent or flawed evidence in trials, and junk science laws can be a necessary tool to combat wrongful convictions.

“The Roberson case is a classic case that Texas law should address,” said Hilbert, who has written about discredited science used in criminal trials.

“It has had a positive impact, but on a very limited scale. There’s so much more it can do.”

___

Lathan is a corps member for the Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.