Texas Law Stops Execution for 'Junk Science' Review

Robert Roberson's execution was halted in Texas due to a law aimed at stopping wrongful convictions based on faulty science. This law, passed in 2013, allows inmates to challenge their conviction if the evidence used against them is no longer credible. However, Roberson's case highlights issues with how the law has been interpreted by the state's highest criminal court. On Monday, Roberson is set to testify before a state House committee. His execution was originally scheduled for four days earlier. He was convicted of murdering his 2-year-old daughter in 2002, with prosecutors claiming he caused fatal head trauma by shaking her. Medical experts and some lawmakers believe his conviction is based on outdated scientific evidence. They argue that the girl likely died from severe pneumonia complications. "Shaken baby syndrome, " the diagnosis used in Roberson's case, has largely been debunked. Despite attempts by his lawyers to present new evidence, courts have rejected these efforts. Texas' parole board also voted against recommending clemency for Roberson. Since the law's enactment, no one on death row has had their sentence overturned using the junk science law. Legal experts suggest the Texas Criminal Court of Appeals has misinterpreted the law, making it difficult for inmates to prove their innocence based on evidence alone. DNA claims have been more successful because they can point to another perpetrator. A House committee will discuss the law's ineffectiveness. Roberson's testimony is seen as crucial to understanding why the law hasn't worked as intended. Prosecutors maintain that the evidence against Roberson hasn't changed significantly since his conviction. Texas' junk science law was the first of its kind and has served as a model for other states. However, its success in overturning death penalty convictions is not well-studied.