Bulletin: Neal Robbins; Texas; Recanting pathologist case: Significant development: Texas's highest court has cleared the way for him to have a new trial in a Toddler's 1998 death after Dr. Patricia Moore, the original pathologist in the case, recanted her earlier conclusion at Robbin's trial that the death was a homicide. "Moore has had a handful of infant death cases reviewed and conclusions changed because her findings of homicide failed to stand up on re-examination. In Tristen's case, Moore later reassessed her conclusions, saying she should have ruled the manner of death "undetermined" instead of "homicide." Robbins' case was buoyed by the 2013 passage of a state law that gave defendants a new challenge if they could prove that there had been a change in the science behind evidence presented at trial." Texas Tribune;

"The state's highest criminal court on Wednesday cleared the way for a Montgomery County man to get a new trial in the 1998 suffocation of a 17-month-old girl. With the move, the court stuck to an earlier decision granting the convicted murderer relief because a 2013 state law allows challenges when scientific evidence evolves after a trial. ........The long-awaited decision involves the case of Robbins, who was convicted in the 1998 death of his girlfriend's daughter, Tristen Skye Trivet. Robbins had been caring for Tristen for hours while her mother was out. Tristen's mother checked on her once after Robbins left and thought the child was sleeping. When she checked 20 minutes later, she found that Tristen's lips were blue and that she was not breathing. Tristen was pronounced dead, and Robbins was later arrested and charged with capital murder. He was convicted in 1999 and sentenced to life in prison. In 2007, the original pathologist in the case, Dr. Patricia Moore, recanted her earlier conclusions at Robbins' trial that the death was a homicide, and Robbins' legal team has worked to get him a new trial. Moore has had a handful of infant death cases reviewed and conclusions changed because her findings of homicide failed to stand up on re-examination.  In Tristen's case, Moore later reassessed her conclusions, saying she should have ruled the manner of death "undetermined" instead of "homicide."  Robbins' case was buoyed by the 2013 passage of a state law that gave defendants a new challenge if they could prove that there had been a change in the science behind evidence presented at trial.   "I'm extremely gratified that the Court of Criminal Appeals has declined the state's invitation to second-guess its decision 14 months ago granting Neal Robbins a new trial he so clearly deserves," said Brian Wice, Robbins' attorney. "All that Neal Robbins has ever asked for in the almost two decades that I've represented him is a fair trial with a reliable result. Today's decision now makes that dream a reality." 
http://www.texastribune.org/2016/01/27/texas-highest-court-rules-expanded-junk-science-la/

See related  Grits for Breakfast  post: "Court of Criminal Appeals judges call out colleagues for judicial activism on Texas junk science writ."
http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.ca/2016/01/court-of-criminal-appeals-judges-call.htmlhttp://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.ca/2016/01/court-of-criminal-appeals-judges-call.html