Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has released a statement addressing criticisms surrounding the conviction of death row inmate Robert Roberson. Roberson was convicted in 2002 for the death of his 2-year-old daughter, Nikki Curtis. In his statement, Paxton aimed to “correct falsehoods” from critics, including state Reps.
Jeff Leach and Joe Moody, who argue that Roberson was unjustifiably convicted. Roberson has maintained his innocence, asserting that his daughter’s death was due to pneumonia rather than head trauma from being violently shaken, as originally argued by prosecutors. Paxton released the original autopsy report and a 2016 letter from the medical examiner, both of which state that Curtis died from blunt force head injuries.
This move came after state legislators and activists claimed that the accusation of shaking leading to the child’s death was based on incomplete science. The execution, scheduled for last Thursday, was postponed following a subpoena from the Texas House for Roberson to testify. Critics argue that Texas Senate Bill 344, allowing convictions to be challenged if they were based on incomplete science, was not properly applied in Roberson’s case.
Paxton addresses Roberson conviction criticisms
Paxton criticized what he labeled as defense “eleventh-hour, one-sided, extrajudicial stunts” aiming to obscure the facts. He also highlighted Roberson’s alleged history of abusing Curtis and her mother, presenting evidence of injuries on Curtis that included a handprint on her face and multiple bruises.
However, opposition to Paxton’s claims described his statement as misleading and obstructive to a bipartisan group of lawmakers seeking the truth. Gretchen Sween, an attorney for Roberson, stated, “The chief law enforcement office of the State of Texas issued a misleading statement designed to quash a bipartisan group of lawmakers in their truth-seeking mission, which has riveted the world.”
The legal team representing Roberson is currently disputing Paxton’s stance on whether Roberson should testify in person or virtually. House committee members argue that Roberson’s autism and long-term solitary confinement would complicate online communication.
Meanwhile, Paxton maintains that allowing Roberson to testify in the state capitol building poses a danger. Paxton’s office concluded by stating, “A few legislators have grossly interfered with the justice system by disregarding the separation of powers outlined in the State Constitution. They have created a Constitutional crisis on behalf of a man who beat his two-year-old daughter to death.”
The case has sparked a broader discussion about the reliability of forensic evidence and the fairness of trials involving such evidence.
As the debate continues, the fate of Robert Roberson remains uncertain.
