Texas Supreme Court declines to reverse delaying execution

DALLAS – The Dallas Morning News reports that the Texas Supreme Court declined a request Sunday from the state attorney general to reconsider its unprecedented order staying the execution of Robert Roberson III, ensuring the man on death row will testify before a House Committee on Monday. The Thursday stay, which was issued hours after Roberson was scheduled to be executed, came after the House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence issued a subpoena calling Roberson to testify about how the state’s 2013 “junk science” law allowing people to challenge convictions with new science was applied in his case. In the Sunday order, the state Supreme Court did not rule on a dispute between the attorney general’s office and lawmakers: whether Roberson will testify in person or via teleconference. Roberson’s attorneys argue that testifying virtually would “profoundly” limit the committee’s ability to assess his credibility, while the attorneys general’s office says bringing him to the Capitol in Austin presents “myriad security and logistical concerns.”

In a 24-page petition filed on behalf of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, the attorney general’s office had said the House committee’s subpoena was “defective on its face” and that the state Supreme Court — which handles civil matters — lacks jurisdiction in the case. The high court’s Thursday order “flouts” the separation of powers and pushed Texas to the “brink of a constitutional crisis,” an attorney with the attorney general’s office said in the filing. State Reps. Jeff Leach, R-Plano, and Joe Moody, D-El Paso, responded Sunday night on behalf of the House of Representatives. They argued the attorney general’s office already conceded the legitimacy of the subpoena in an earlier hearing and that this case highlights the “interdependence” of the branches of government, but does not breach their separate powers. During the Travis County hearing Thursday, Assistant Attorney General Ed Marshall said the case was not a “shaken baby” case and argued the Court of Criminal Appeals had exclusive jurisdiction.