Justice unhappy with Texas handling of Roberson’s death row case

WASHINGTON – The Dallas Morning News reports that when the U.S. Supreme Court declined to stop Texas from executing death row inmate Robert Roberson III, the Thursday evening ruling included sharp words from Justice Sonia Sotomayor. It was not the first time Sotomayor criticized the way Texas and the courts have handled death penalty cases. Roberson was convicted of capital murder in 2003 after his daughter died of what medical experts believed to be a case of shaken baby syndrome. Defense lawyers, backed by a bipartisan group of state lawmakers, pressed to delay the execution, arguing Roberson’s conviction was based on debunked theories of shaken baby syndrome and that he is likely innocent. When the Supreme Court rejected Roberson’s request for a stay of execution, Sotomayor cited a precedent establishing that the justices have “no power to tell state courts how they must write their opinions.”

“Nevertheless, it is notable that the [Texas Court of Criminal Appeals] decisions in this case do not address the whole of Roberson’s evidence of actual innocence,” she wrote. Sotomayor also criticized the Texas appeals court for inconsistent rulings on cases involving shaken baby syndrome. “The TCCA just this week granted a new trial to Andrew Wayne Roark, a non-capital defendant whose child-abuse conviction rested on the same shaken-baby-syndrome testimony, from the same expert witness, that led to Roberson’s conviction,” she wrote. “When Roberson sought a stay of execution based on the argument the TCCA credited in Roark, the TCCA summarily denied relief.” Roberson filed his fourth post-conviction appeal after the Roark ruling, Sotomayor wrote, “illustrating in detail that the testimony as to shaken-baby syndrome in Roark had been nearly indistinguishable from the testimony in his case.” Even so, she wrote, the Court of Criminal Appeals voted 5-4 to deny relief. Sotomayor acknowledged Roberson’s request for a stay lacked a “cognizable federal claim” for the court to act upon but said “few cases more urgently call for such a remedy than one where the accused has made a serious showing of actual innocence, as Roberson has here.”