By Vanguard Staff
PALESTINE, TX – Attorneys for Robert Roberson, a Texas death row prisoner convicted in the 2002 death of his two-year-old daughter Nikki, have filed a formal objection to Attorney General Ken Paxton’s request for an execution date—arguing that Roberson’s case remains under review by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals based on significant new evidence supporting his claim of actual innocence.
On Monday, the Office of the Attorney General, which recently took over representation of the state in the case, filed a motion with the Anderson County District Court requesting that an execution date be scheduled. In response, Roberson’s legal team submitted an “Objection to Request for Execution Date and Motion to Be Heard,” asserting that the Attorney General’s request is improper and unlawful under Texas statute, as it disregards a pending habeas corpus petition that contains extensive new expert analysis and evidence.
The habeas petition, filed under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11.071, outlines a comprehensive challenge to the original conviction. Among the new evidence presented is an affidavit from a nationally recognized pathologist who concluded that Nikki Roberson’s death was caused not by abuse, but by a combination of natural illness, a serious bleeding disorder, and possible medical error. The petition is also supported by a joint statement from ten independent forensic pathologists rejecting the conclusions of the original 2002 autopsy, which formed the basis for the prosecution’s case.
Roberson’s attorneys argue that scheduling an execution while this petition is pending would violate state law and principles of due process. Article 43.141 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure allows courts to decline to set or to withdraw execution dates when additional proceedings are necessary to resolve a subsequent application for post-conviction relief.
In their filing, Roberson’s attorneys emphasize that the scientific foundation of his conviction—shaken baby syndrome (also referred to as abusive head trauma or SBS/AHT)—has been widely discredited in recent years. The same prosecution expert who testified against Roberson also played a central role in Ex parte Roark, a case in which the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted relief just last year, recognizing the outdated and unreliable nature of the SBS/AHT hypothesis.
Roberson’s counsel further noted that their client nearly faced execution last year, and that intervention by bipartisan state lawmakers prevented what they described as the potential execution of an innocent man. The team submitted testimony and affidavits from a wide range of supporters, including the lead detective in the original investigation, a juror, and scientific experts, all of whom have expressed grave doubts about the integrity of Roberson’s conviction.
Roberson’s attorneys have also argued that executing a person in the midst of an unresolved innocence claim would likely violate the U.S. Constitution. They point to Eighth Amendment prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment and to Fourteenth Amendment protections of both substantive and procedural due process.
The motion notes that there is currently no judge assigned to the case following the recusal of Judge Deborah Evans in 2024. Any decision to schedule an execution date, the attorneys contend, should only be made after a full hearing with a judge who has reviewed the case’s complex legal and scientific history.
Roberson is believed to be the only person currently on death row in the United States whose conviction rests entirely on now-disputed SBS/AHT medical theories. The objection draws comparisons to similar cases—such as that of Alan Butts in Ohio—where convictions were overturned after courts determined that the evolving understanding of pediatric head injuries undermined the original verdict.
“If tried today, the expert testimony presented on both sides would differ in crucial ways,” the filing states, citing findings from the Ohio court that exonerated Butts. Those findings include recognition that retinal hemorrhages are no longer accepted as sole indicators of abuse, that short accidental falls can cause fatal injuries, and that illnesses like pneumonia and the effects of cold medications are now better understood.
Roberson’s attorneys argue that the Attorney General’s motion is not only unjustified but in conflict with Texas law.
They request that no execution date be set while the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals considers the pending application and urge the court to hold a hearing before taking any action.
