This case exposes courts reliance on past expert opinions (legal precedents) used to render death penalty convictions. The crux is when those “scientific” ideas are now considered not grounded by reliable medical research. This reveals the sad fact that junk science can kill. Judges are not trained in science methods and medicine. They are lawyers trained in the commandments of stare decicis (Latin: “stand by things decided”).

The case.

Robert Leslie Roberson III  He was convicted in 2003 of the capital murder of his 2-year-old daughter, Nikki Curtis, who died in 2002.  At trial, prosecutors argued that Roberson violently shook his daughter (so-called “shaken baby syndrome” or SBS) causing fatal brain trauma.  Roberson’s defense contends that his daughter’s death was due to natural disease, especially pneumonia (and/or complications of medications), not abuse.  Over time, “shaken baby syndrome” as a medical/legal diagnosis has come under substantial criticism and reexamination, and some courts and experts now view it as an unreliable or overextended theory when used to prove abuse.  Roberson also has a criminal history (prior convictions, paroles) which was factored into his trial and sentencing. 

Recent developments & the pending execution

Execution scheduling

On July 16, 2025, a judge (Austin Reeve Jackson) set a new execution date of October 16, 2025 for Roberson.  The Texas Attorney General (Ken Paxton) requested setting that date, even though Roberson still has a pending appeal before the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) in which his attorneys present new scientific evidence.  At the hearing, the judge (Jackson) expressed that the judicial system needs finality, and it was appropriate to set a date now rather than indefinitely postponing.  However, Roberson’s lawyers argue there is no legal requirement to set a date while appeals are unresolved, and they say setting a date before the CCA rules harms due process. 

Legal and procedural claims by the defense

Roberson’s defense has raised several arguments and new claims:

New scientific evidence recantation of “shaken baby” theory. They argue that medical science has evolved and shown that many of the assumptions underlying SBS cases are flawed.  They point to a recent Texas appellate decision (Ex parte Roark) in which a conviction grounded on SBS testimony was reversed, citing evolving science.  Procedural and constitutional claims They allege that Anderson County judges may have acted unconstitutionally, especially in how life support was withdrawn from Nikki (her grandparents supposedly withdrew it despite Roberson being her legal conservator) and in judicial conflicts of interest.  They challenge the setting of an execution date while a substantive appeal is pending as violating due process.  They also seek a new trial rather than just a stay or delay.  Waiver of clemency. It has been reported that Roberson has waived his right to petition for clemency, choosing instead to focus on getting a new trial. 

Stakes & significance

If carried out, Roberson’s execution would likely become a notable (even historic) case: potentially the first execution in the U.S. based on a shaken baby syndrome conviction (or where the conviction heavily rested on such a theory).  The case has drawn broad attention from legal, scientific, legislative, and media observers, especially because it sits at the intersection of evolving medical science and capital punishment.  Critics of the conviction argue that executing someone when serious scientific debate persists about the reliability of the underlying medical evidence poses a risk of irreversible error.  Supporters of execution argue that the court system must have finality and that Roberson’s appeals opportunities have been exhausted under existing Texas law. 

What remains unresolved

The CCA has not yet ruled on Roberson’s most recent appeal, which raises new evidence and challenges.  His attorneys have requested a stay of the execution date while the CCA considers the appeal.  There is a question about whether the judge’s setting of a date (with appeals pending) will be seen as premature or invalid in light of procedural norms and constitutional protections. The legal arguments about the withdrawal of life support, custody, and alleged judicial misconduct need further judicial review.