Texas Set to Execute Man Based on Disproven “Shaken Baby Syndrome” Theory
Next month, Robert Roberson is scheduled to be executed in Texas based on his conviction for killing his 2-year-old daughter in 2002 after medical experts testified at his trial that the combination of injuries found on her body could only have been caused by violent shaking, or the well-known theory of shaken baby syndrome (“SBS”). Roberson’s defense stated his daughter was sick, evident in the fact that he had taken her to the doctor twice in the past week after she ran a high fever and had been coughing and vomiting, only to be given drugs that are no longer prescribed to children her age, and that she had fallen out of bed the night before which had led to some bruising. Nonetheless, he was convicted after the testimony of medical professionals about SBS and how it applied to his daughter’s case. This so-called theory has repeatedly been disproven by scientific research and 34 people in the United States alone have seen their conviction based on SBS testimony overturned and have been exonerated, according to the National Registry of Exonerations. Roberson sought to challenge his conviction in recent years under the state’s “junk science writ” that allows individuals to challenge past convictions that were based on since disproven scientific theories. What makes the case more frustrating for Roberson is that in passing the legislation, then-Houston Democratic Rep. Sylvester Turner specifically cited SBS cases, as well as other junk science methods, as cause for concern. Texas was the first state to implement such a law after a series of forensic science cases called into question much evidence presented against various defendants across the state, including the shutting down of the Houston Police Department’s DNA laboratory over scandals and the execution of a since-proven innocent man whose conviction was based on disproven arson forensic science. While the new law was applauded at the time of its passage in 2013, in the ten years since its passage Texas courts have been hesitant to apply the appellate tool. Although the number of filed claims is not tracked or known, of the 74 applications that have received written rulings by the court, only 15 people received relief in their cases in the first ten years after the legislation passed. “The deadly consequences of this pattern are clear: People may be executed following convictions that rest on faulty science because they are unable to obtain relief,” reads a report by the Texas Defender Service covering how courts have implemented the law. “This is especially concerning because the rate of wrongful convictions of death-sentenced people is quite high.”
Supreme Court Justice Urges Legislation on Junk Science in Denial of Appeal
The Supreme Court recently declined to review the conviction of an Alabama man, Charles McCrory, who was convicted of murdering his estranged wife in 1985 largely on testimony of a “bite mark” expert. Bite mark testimony has since been debunked and the expert who testified at his trial about the bite mark evidence recanted his testimony and filled an affidavit in McCrory’s appeal disavowing the scientific basis for his testimony. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court declined to hear McCrory’s case. Writing separately in her denial, Justice Sotomayor wrote that she agreed in denying his petition based on procedural grounds that not enough due process claims like McCrory’s had been sufficiently ruled on by lower federal courts for the Supreme Court to weigh in on the matter, but noted that, “This petition raises difficult questions about the adequacy of current postconviction remedies to correct a conviction secured by what we now know was faulty science. Hundreds if not thousands of innocent people may currently be incarcerated despite a modern consensus that the central piece of evidence at their trials lacked any scientific basis.” She then urged lawmakers not to wait on the judiciary, but to look to states like Texas and California who have provided avenues for defendants to challenge their convictions based on faulty science as role models. However, as outlined above, relief at the state level can still prove difficult even with these tools in place. Many inmates do not have the resources or legal expertise to navigate the complicated procedural avenues mandated by law for a successful appeal, evident in the fact that the Court of Criminal Appeals in Texas has denied the petitions of every pro-se litigate except one. Though appeals or post-conviction relief in criminal cases are always somewhat of a longshot, it is important that anyone maintaining their innocence who believes that they were convicted based on faulty forensic evidence should consult an experienced attorney who can assist them and give them their best shot at post-conviction relief. Moreover, if resources permit, anyone currently facing charges involving forensic evidence should hire a criminal defense attorney who has experience fighting back at so-called forensic “science” who also understands the latest legal challenges to its implementation in court.
