Testimony at Texas Legislature Does Not Include Robert Roberson But Witnesses Confirm Serious Concerns about the Possible Execution of an Innocent Man

The Texas House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence heard tes­ti­mo­ny on Monday October 21, 2024 from nov­el­ist John Grisham, talk show host ​“Dr. Phil” McGraw, but not its expect­ed star wit­ness, Robert Roberson, whose sub­poe­naed tes­ti­mo­ny result­ed in a dra­mat­ic last-minute stay of exe­cu­tion on October 17^th from the Texas Supreme Court. Legislators said they could not reach an agree­ment with the Office of the Texas Attorney General to facil­i­tate Mr. Roberson’s in-per­son tes­ti­mo­ny, and Committee Chair Joe Moody indi­cat­ed that leg­is­la­tors did not believe Mr. Roberson’s tes­ti­mo­ny via video link would be appro­pri­ate giv­en the com­mu­ni­ca­tions chal­lenges relat­ed to his autism spec­trum dis­or­der. Mr. Roberson’s lawyer Gretchen Sween sent a let­ter to the House Committee explain­ing why Mr. Roberson’s appear­ance by video would not be effec­tive and cit­ed ​“mate­r­i­al mis­rep­re­sen­ta­tions about record facts” by the Office of the Attorney General. Chair Moody not­ed that nego­ti­a­tions were con­tin­u­ing with his expec­ta­tion that a ​“quick res­o­lu­tion” would allow Mr. Roberson to testify.

At the hear­ing, leg­is­la­tors heard from a num­ber of wit­ness­es who recount­ed the facts of the case and the con­clu­sions of many experts that no crime caused the death of Mr. Roberson’s young daugh­ter, Nikki. Dr. Phil tes­ti­fied for more than two hours, not­ing his pri­or work as a clin­i­cal psy­chol­o­gist and describ­ing his sup­port for the death penal­ty in gen­er­al before express­ing his absolute belief in Mr. Roberson’s innocence. 

Novelist John Grisham tes­ti­fied by video. Mr. Grisham not­ed his expe­ri­ence as a for­mer crim­i­nal tri­al lawyer and a cur­rent board mem­ber at the New York-based Innocence Project. He described Mr. Roberson’s tri­al as ​“gross­ly unfair” and tes­ti­fied that the ​“junk sci­ence was ter­ri­ble. We know it’s bad science.”

Both Mr. Grisham and Dr. Phil not­ed the prej­u­di­cial effect of hav­ing the jury hear about alle­ga­tions of sex­u­al abuse – alle­ga­tions made by just one hos­pi­tal staff mem­ber and nev­er proven. Mr. Grisham said he believes Mr. Roberson should receive a new tri­al, ​“with as many lawyers as the pros­e­cu­tion, and as many experts as the pros­e­cu­tion” so he will have a fair pro­ceed­ing. Mr. Grisham also described why ​“junk sci­ence is a huge fac­tor” that caus­es wrong­ful con­vic­tions, and not­ed the many exon­er­a­tions that have occurred after foren­sic sci­ence was revealed to be unreliable. 

Terre Compton, one of the jurors at Mr. Roberson’s tri­al, tes­ti­fied that the ​“only thing” jurors were told by pros­e­cu­tors was that Nikki’s death was caused by ​“shak­en baby syndrome”(SBS) – in con­trast to recent state­ments from a Texas Attorney General plead­ing stat­ing that ​“SBS just does­n’t play a role in this case.” Ms. Compton expressed being ​“very pissed off” at how offi­cials now describe what hap­pened at the tri­al; she added that she would have nev­er vot­ed to con­vict Mr. Roberson if any oth­er expla­na­tion for Nikki’s death had been pro­vid­ed. Former Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Judge Elsa Alcala, who has been crit­i­cal of how Texas’ ​“junk sci­ence” law has been used, also tes­ti­fied at Monday’s hear­ing and offered sug­ges­tions about ways that the law could be changed. 

Gov. Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton object­ed to the hear­ing, argu­ing that House mem­bers over­stepped their author­i­ty in call­ing it, and by sub­poe­naing Roberson to testify. 

The hear­ing con­tin­ued for close to 9 hours, with addi­tion­al tes­ti­mo­ny from Mr. Roberson’s long­time coun­sel, Gretchen Sween, attor­ney Donald Salzman, and autism expert Natalie Montfort.