On Friday, the Texas Supreme Court removed an injunction that prevented Robert Roberson from being executed last month, saying that the state’s legislative branch can’t supersede the work of the judicial branch.
Last month, the House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence took the extraordinary step of issuing a subpoena for Roberson to testify as part of its ongoing hearings into the efficacy of a state law that allows people convicted with evidence using disputed science to have their cases re-examined. Roberson was convicted in 2003 of killing his toddler daughter, Nikki, in part thanks to “shaken baby” evidence most experts now believe is junk science. His attorneys—and even the detective who arrested him—believe he should have a new trial.
The subpoena was issued on October 16, just 24 hours before Roberson was due to be executed. It kicked off a flurry of legal maneuvers. The House Committee filed for a temporary injunction to stop the execution so Roberson could testify. Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office appealed after a Travis County District Court judge approved the injunction, and the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the decision. The committee then turned to the state Supreme Court, which issued the injunction until it could rule on what became a very gnarly separation of powers issue.
Friday’s ruling does not weigh in on whether Roberson deserves a new trial, and it doesn’t consider guilt or innocence. Instead, it ruled on whether a subpoena from the legislative branch could halt a death row inmate’s execution. The court ruled that “the committee’s authority to compel testimony does not include the power to override the scheduled legal process leading to an execution.” Issuing the subpoena to compel testimony for a date after the scheduled execution, the court says, “The subpoena created a conflict involving all three branches of government.”
Roberson is still on Death Row, but now, a new execution must be scheduled, and state law says the earliest that can happen is 90 days from now. The court pointed out there is ample time for Roberson to testify before the committee, and seemed to urge the Texas Department of Criminal Justice to make an effort to work with the lawmakers. It also recognized that the lawmakers could go back to court to compel the department’s cooperation as long as it “does not inevitably block a scheduled execution.”
“We are confident that such a resort to the judiciary will not be needed,” the ruling added.
Committee members Joe Moody (D-El Paso) and Jeff Leach (R-McKinney) said the committee never intended to use the subpoena to delay Roberson’s execution.
By virtue of Justice Young’s well-reasoned and well-written opinion, the Texas Supreme Court made three things very clear:
— Jeff Leach (@leachfortexas) November 15, 2024
1) Our legislative subpoena is valid.
2) Our House Committee is Constitutionally entitled to obtain Mr. Roberson’s testimony.
3) The Executive Branch… https://t.co/9kFkiBKqET
“The Supreme Court strongly reinforced our belief that our Committee can indeed obtain Mr. Roberson’s testimony and made clear that it expects the Executive Branch of government to accommodate us in doing so,” they said in a joint statement. “That has been our position all along, and we look forward to working with the Executive Branch to do just that.”
Moody, for his part, is also looking to the upcoming legislative session to address some of the things the committee has considered. He’s filed a bill that would revise the state’s junk science law to change the standard of proof required to get a new trial. It would also require the Court of Criminal Appeals to file a written response when it denies a writ of habeas corpus.
Author
