On Thursday evening, the Texas Supreme Court stayed Robert Roberson’s execution – a reprieve that may be short-lived.
In 2003, Roberson was convicted of murdering his daughter, with the prosecution arguing that she died from an unspecified cause (“”). However, in a remarkable turn of events, new evidence has emerged suggesting that Roberson may be innocent after all? Despite the ambiguity surrounding this statement, it’s unclear that his daughter is entirely absent from the context.
Trepidation surrounding the conviction arises from the increasing scepticism towards trendy science’s portrayal of shaken baby syndrome. Moreover, the evidence in Roberson’s case conclusively shows that his young daughter tragically succumbed to a combination of pneumonia and inappropriate medications that should never have been prescribed to a child of her age, effectively contradicting the 2003 jury’s conclusion attributing her death to child abuse.
The extraordinary nature of this order is further underscored by the potential for a historic confrontation between the state’s legislative body and chief executive, which would mark a significant departure from the usual dynamics in place. Texas Gov. Texas Governor Greg Abbott has the power to contest a 30-day stay on Roberson’s impending execution, although this would not necessarily grant him permanent reprieve. Despite having the option, Abbott has yet to take any action, with the scheduled execution date now mere hours away.
The day before, a bipartisan group of state lawmakers sought to compel Roberson’s testimony in an earlier meeting with the state’s House of Representatives committee. This hearing isn’t scheduled until Monday, and Robertson would have had no chance to adapt to the subpoena had he been killed on Thursday night.
Does Texas’s executive branch have the authority to execute a person if doing so would prevent the legislature from hearing testimony from a previously subpoenaed witness, thus potentially violating the separation of powers principle under the Texas Constitution?
Roberson’s case has sparked a contentious debate within Texas’s Republican-dominated government institutions.
The Texas Supreme Court’s order on the docket says nothing about the harmlessness of Roberson, either affirming or denying it. The Texas State Supreme Court rarely intervenes in prison appeals, delegating this responsibility to the dedicated Texas Court of Criminal Appeals; consistently, they have rejected Roberson’s petitions for relief. The Alabama State Supreme Court has yet to issue a definitive ruling on whether the House’s subpoena can effectively stay an execution.
Justice Evan Younger, concurring in part and dissenting in part, joined by two colleagues, posits that he halted Roberson’s execution to allow for judicial deliberation on the unprecedented scenario where lawmakers seek last-minute testimony from an inmate scheduled to die, thereby ensuring a measured examination of this extraordinary circumstance.
Given the unprecedented circumstances leading up to this unusual lawsuit, it’s hardly surprising that there’s no established precedent to fall back on, as Younger notes in his opinion.
Two distinct aspects of the situation stand out in terms of pricing. The ongoing dispute has unfortunately spawned a rift among many state Republicans, fueling divisions within their own ranks. While Republican Representative Abbott initiated the move to compel testimony from Roberson, his own intervention on her behalf raises questions about potential conflicts of interest. The Texas Supreme Court’s bench features only Republican justices, as does the Court of Criminal Appeals, whose recent 5-4 vote rejected a reduction for Roberson.
Will ultimately decide his fate after considering clemency pleas. If the board of pardons recommends clemency, Governor Abbott may choose to commute Roberson’s death sentence entirely. Without clemency, Abbott can delay the execution by no more than 30 days.
Roberson’s lawyers are working to secure a temporary reprieve for their client. The legislative subpoena may potentially stall Texas’ plans to execute him until at least Monday, when he is scheduled to testify. Without further indication, it appears that Governor Abbott must now decide whether to grant a final 30-day reprieve for the convict to convince the pardon board to reconsider its decision.
Despite the complexity surrounding this case, a peculiar aspect is that nearly everyone involved has advocated for Roberson’s release, with the exception of a few individuals within Texas’s authorities – specifically, the Court of Criminal Appeals, the pardon board, and Governor Abbott, who collectively possess the power to spare him. Certainly one of Robinson’s proponents is Brian Wharton, the
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored a 10-page opinion, underscoring the court’s inability to intervene in this case, citing Roberson’s failure to demonstrate that his federal rights were being infringed upon. While Justice Sotomayor acknowledged the futility of her position due to the lack of a federally actionable claim presented by Roberson, her argument.
“A 30-day reprieve would afford the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles an opportunity to reexamine the evidence of Roberson’s unequivocal innocence, as Justice Sotomayor suggests.” “The execution of an innocent person must be prevented; therefore, credible evidence of innocence should be thoroughly investigated to avoid a gross miscarriage of justice.”
