Texas lawmakers did something unprecedented to save an innocent man’s life.

At the time of her death, according to the Innocence Project, Nikki had “a high fever and suffered a brief fall from bed.” Hospital staff did not know that Mr. Roberson had autism and judged his reaction to his daughter’s serious condition as emotionless .” They called the police.

When Roberson went on trial in 2003, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote Thursday in a statement about the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear his case, shaken baby syndrome was “so undisputed that Roberson’s own defense attorney told it to the jury.” in his opening statement that it was “unfortunately a case of a shaken baby” and that the evidence “shows that Nikki did indeed suffer injuries fully consistent with those caused by rotational forces, commonly known as shaken baby syndrome.” and that he “wouldn’t tell you that.” There is simply no responsibility here at all.’ ”

Sotomayor explains: “If the experts in Roberson’s trial were to testify again today on the same theory, they would be confronted with twenty years of serious scientific evidence that contradicts their testimony at trial.” She points out that the Texas appeals court in this particular case Week granted a new trial to a defendant “whose child molestation conviction was based on the same expert witness’s testimony about shaken baby syndrome that led to Roberson’s conviction.”

That’s why it’s inconceivable that it didn’t have the same effect on Roberson. His case is, as the Innocence Project puts it, “full of unscientific evidence, inaccurate and misleading medical testimony, and adverse treatment.” It also states: “The overwhelming medical and scientific evidence now shows that Nikki died of accident and natural causes.”

It’s bad enough that in this country we regularly convict people for crimes they didn’t commit, but it’s truly Kafkaesque to execute someone for what Intercept describes as “a crime that never happened.”

Not surprisingly, the gross miscarriage of justice in his case has attracted national and international attention and made him a cause célèbre for people opposed to the death penalty and many death penalty advocates. Roberson has joined the pantheon of people whose treatment in the Texas death penalty system has made him a pariah and an example of the excesses and injustices of capital punishment everywhere.

Among those now speaking out against the execution of Robert Roberson are renowned scientists such as Patrick Barnes of Stanford. Barnes is no newcomer to legal cases in which shaken baby syndrome has played a key role.

In 1997 he worked as a law enforcement expert in the high-profile case of Louise Woodward, a British nanny who was prosecuted and convicted in Massachusetts for allegedly shaking and killing Matthew Eappen, a baby in her care. She was sentenced to life imprisonment, but her conviction was later overturned.

Barnes explains: “Over the past two decades there has been a revolution in the understanding of internal pediatric head disorders that has shown that numerous naturally occurring diseases can affect a child in the ways previously attributed to SBS.”…But the law has in in many cases not keeping up with the science.”

Roberson’s case is one of those cases. As writer John Grisham, who has also championed Roberson’s cause, warned more than a year ago, he would soon be “out of options unless the Texas authorities, recognizing the injustice of Mr. Roberson’s conviction and death sentence, reverse course.” and grant him a new test.”

Texas authorities have done nothing of the sort. That’s why last month, a bipartisan group of more than 80 Texas lawmakers, including many ardent supporters of the death penalty, wrote to the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles in support of Roberson’s clemency request. They expressed their “grave concern that Texas might execute him for a crime that was not committed.”

But her letter fell on deaf ears. That left Roberson’s fate up to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, who has the authority under state law to grant pardons. This authority generally rests with executive officials at the state or federal level.

Like the Pardon and Parole Board, Abbott was unaffected. But that didn’t stop members of the Texas Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence, several of whom signed the letter to the pardon board, from throwing a Hail Mary pass.

They have scheduled a hearing for Oct. 21 to consider whether the state needs to toughen its laws on the use of junk science. They then issued a subpoena ordering Roberson to appear at the hearing.

They hope Roberson’s execution will be stayed until the end of the 2025 legislative session to give lawmakers time to consider changing the law. Meanwhile, the committee acted as if it knew it would make history and raise a hornet’s nest of trouble, passing the subpoena motion unanimously and without debate in four minutes.

But that wasn’t the end of the matter. It would be up to the courts to decide whether to exercise this legislative grace period.

As the time for Roberson’s execution approached, two members of the Legislature asked a state district court to do so. Her wish was initially granted. But the Court of Criminal Appeals overturned that decision and issued a life-or-death decision for the Texas Supreme Court.

This court sided with the legislature even as it recognized that honoring the subpoena and upholding the validity of a legislative reprieve raised profound separation of powers issues. As Judge Evan Young explained, “the question of whether the legislature may use its powers to compel the presence of witnesses to block the executive branch’s power to carry out a death sentence involves dividing the powers among the three branches of government, each two branches compete against each other.” others.”

These questions include whether the executive branch “must yield when the legislature invokes its authority”—that is, would carrying out an execution under these circumstances constitute an intrusion by the executive branch on the broad authority of the legislature? Or, on the contrary, would allowing various committees of the Legislature to summon an inmate facing a death sentence and risk manipulating the judicial process and executive function constitute interference by the legislature in the proper functioning of the law?”

“If the other two branches,” Young wrote, “cannot reach an agreement on their own—and perhaps they still can—the district court may continue the litigation,” but it “should move to the underlying issues with the utmost expediency pass over.”

Roberson is safe for now. But anyone who believes in the simple proposition that innocent people should not be punished cannot simply calm down.

Abolitionists and others who advocate this principle have relied on a fairly standard playbook for too long. Now they should take inspiration from what Texas lawmakers did in the Roberson case. They should use the powers and resources they already have for new purposes. For lawmakers, that could mean threatening to withhold funding for corrections departments if they can’t find another way to prevent the execution of an innocent person. In such cases, governors should threaten to fire executive branch officials who do not do what they can.

Whatever they do, they and all of us should realize that our fate is inextricably linked to the fate of other people Roberson.