Amicus Brief: Robert Roberson
Ex Parte Robert Leslie Roberson III
Filing Date
April 8, 2022
Charge
Capital Murder
Jurisdiction
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Partners
Summary
CIFS filed this amicus brief in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in Robert Roberson’s case to argue that shaken baby syndrome as we know it today, is junk science and Roberson is entitled to habeas relief. We ask for a new trial based on the erroneous nature of the SBS/AHT hypothesis.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
The death of two-year-old Nikki Curtis was a tragedy—a tragedy that will be compounded beyond measure if Mr. Roberson is wrongfully executed based on flawed forensic evidence. The prosecution relied heavily on the Shaken Baby Syndrome/Abusive Head Trauma (“SBS/AHT”) theory to explain Nikki’s condition, which the prosecution believes caused her death. As was made clear in the habeas evidentiary hearing, in light of current scientific understanding, the SBS AHT hypothesis cannot establish causation with any degree of medical certainty. Ignoring the mountainous evidence Mr. Roberson adduced at a nine-day evidentiary hearing, which included ample evidence completely discrediting the SBS/AHT theory of causation, the habeas court denied relief on all grounds Mr. Roberson presented. As is relevant to this brief, the habeas court relied primarily on the State’s witnesses, to the exclusion of the more credible testimony of the vastly more qualified experts Mr. Roberson presented, and credited trial testimony while entirely ignoring the new evidence and scientific theories offered at the hearing. The habeas court acknowledged Mr. Roberson’s experts only to take their testimony out of context and ignore their ultimate conclusion that the State’s theory of causation is wholly insupportable in light of present-day scientific understanding and the facts now known regarding Nikki’s condition. Stripped of any legitimate scientific underpinning, the remaining evidence is insufficient to support the jury’s verdict. This Brief is intended to assist the Court in understanding the manner in which the habeas court fundamentally disregarded the scientific evidence adduced concerning the State’s theory of causation, and how, when faced with present-day understanding of SBS/AHT, other courts across the nation—based on evidence much like that Mr. Roberson presented—have granted post-conviction relief in cases where individuals were convicted based on the unsubstantiated SBS/AHT hypothesis.