April 2025
, / , / , / ,
The death penalty case of Robert Roberson has captivated attention across the nation, not just for the tragic death of his daughter, Nikki, but for the layers of injustice that have been revealed through the legal process and the evolving understanding of medical science. Roberson’s conviction in 2002 was based on the now-discredited medical theory of “Shaken Baby Syndrome” (SBS). Over the years, the case has grown into a profound example of how outdated science, combined with the unrelenting power of the state, can lead to wrongful convictions. At the heart of the case are the interventions from Texas’s Attorney General’s office, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, and, most recently, the state legislature. These bodies have played pivotal roles in a story that continues to unfold, raising questions about the death penalty, wrongful convictions, and the power dynamics within the state of Texas.
The Tragic Event and Roberson’s Conviction
Robert Roberson was convicted of capital murder in 2002 for the death of his 2-year-old daughter, Nikki Curtis. The case initially seemed straightforward to law enforcement: Nikki had suffered from a short fall from a bed and had been exhibiting signs of a severe illness—undiagnosed pneumonia and a high fever. However, medical staff misinterpreted Roberson’s behavior at the hospital. As someone with autism, Roberson’s flat, unemotional demeanor was misconstrued as indifference to his daughter’s condition, leading investigators to suspect him in the child’s death.
Despite presenting no credible evidence linking Roberson to the cause of his daughter’s death, the prosecution relied heavily on the prevailing medical theory at the time—Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS). The theory posited that a child exhibiting a specific set of symptoms, including brain hemorrhages and retinal hemorrhages, was almost certainly a victim of violent shaking or impact. Under this assumption, Roberson was convicted and sentenced to death.
As science advanced, the foundations of SBS began to erode, revealing that much of what was accepted in the medical community was flawed or unsupported by evidence. The understanding of child brain injuries, the nature of short falls, and the causes of the symptoms attributed to SBS all came under scrutiny. By the time Roberson’s legal team presented their new evidence, the SBS theory had been discredited, and his case began to be viewed in a new light.
The Role of the Texas Attorney General’s Office
The Texas Attorney General’s office has played a significant role in this ongoing case, seeking to ensure that justice is served while also upholding the integrity of the legal system. In 2024, Roberson was scheduled for execution, but his case sparked action from both legal advocates and lawmakers. When the Texas legislature subpoenaed Roberson to testify about the evolving science in his case, the Attorney General’s office intervened to block his testimony.
This intervention, though controversial, was based on legal principles and a focus on the procedural aspects of the case. While it may have initially seemed to thwart efforts for Roberson’s voice to be heard, the actions of the Attorney General’s office ensured that the case continued to be reviewed in light of the new scientific evidence. This was not an attempt to obstruct justice, but rather a part of ensuring that the process was followed with due consideration for legal standards.
The Texas Legislature’s Involvement
In contrast, the Texas legislature played an important role in reexamining Roberson’s case and advocating for reform. In 2024, after Roberson’s execution was stayed by the Texas Supreme Court, the House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence released an interim report that explicitly highlighted Roberson’s case as an example of individual injustice compounded by broader systemic flaws in Texas’s legal and criminal justice systems.
The committee’s report, which was included in Roberson’s latest legal filing, underscored the fact that the state had failed to recognize the discredited nature of the SBS theory for years, leading to multiple wrongful convictions. The report also emphasized the need for legislative reform, particularly in regard to how medical evidence is used in criminal trials.
This involvement of the legislature represents a significant shift. Historically, lawmakers in Texas have been among the strongest proponents of the death penalty, but this case—and the growing body of exonerations based on flawed science—has forced a reconsideration of that stance. Lawmakers have begun to acknowledge that the death penalty, in its current form, may be too prone to error, especially when it is based on outdated or unreliable scientific testimony. Roberson’s case has helped to catalyze this dialogue, and while it remains unclear what specific reforms may arise from this scrutiny, the legislature’s growing involvement signals a shift in the conversation around criminal justice reform in Texas.
A Growing Awareness of Wrongful Convictions
Roberson’s case highlights the intersection between science, law, and the death penalty. The legal system’s reliance on expert testimony, which can change over time as scientific understanding evolves, raises important questions about how justice is administered, especially in cases as severe as capital punishment. The involvement of the Texas legislature, as well as the Attorney General’s office, reflects a broader national debate about whether the death penalty should continue to be applied in a system that is increasingly aware of its potential for error.
The Battle for Justice
Roberson’s legal battle continues to serve as a beacon for reform, not just in Texas but across the country, as more individuals fight for their lives and seek to undo the damage caused by outdated science and wrongful convictions. While the state of Texas has long been a staunch supporter of the death penalty, the Roberson case forces a hard look at whether the machinery of the state is built on the bedrock of truth, or if it is driven by a commitment to an irrevocable punishment system that can, in fact, be wrong. On February 19, 2025, Roberson filed a new ‘Subsequent Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus under Articles 11.071 and 11.073 and Suggestion to Reconsider on the Court’s Own Initiative’ including the interim report from the House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence and an affidavit from Dr. Michael Laposata, a pathologist with over four decades of expertise in coagulation and bleeding disorders. After reviewing Nikki’s medical records, autopsy, and other available information, Dr. Laposata concluded that Nikki likely suffered from Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation (DIC), a blood clotting disorder often caused by severe illnesses such as pneumonia. Dr. Laposata also reviewed the reports of three other medical experts, all of whom supported his conclusions. Additionally, the February 19th filings include a joint statement from ten pathologists who assert that the 2002 autopsy performed on Nikki Curtis is unreliable.
The case of Robert Roberson is far from over. What is clear, however, is that this case has exposed significant flaws in both the scientific understanding of child injuries and the way the state handles capital punishment. The evolving involvement of the Texas legislature and the Attorney General’s office reflects a critical shift in recognizing the need for justice reform, particularly in light of discredited medical theories and the growing awareness of wrongful convictions. As Roberson’s legal battle continues, it remains a powerful example of how the pursuit of truth and fairness can challenge entrenched systems and foster a much-needed dialogue about the future of capital punishment in Texas.