BACKGROUND: (Role played by Child Abuse Expert Janet Squires); Herald Press story by Pennylynn Webb, published on April 27, 2024: (Child Abuse Expert Janet Squires): "This week, Gretchen Sween, Roberson’s attorney, asked the court to reconsider its decision in 2023 “based on the showing that his conviction was based on the debunked Shaken Baby Syndrome/Abusive Head Trauma hypothesis used to convict him in 2003.” “The decision is entirely up to the court, but the Court of Criminal Appeals has, occasionally, decided to reconsider a decision when it is clear that key facts or law have changed.” Sween said prosecutors representing the state in Dallas County have agreed that Andrew Roark should get a new trial after he also was convicted using the same SBS/AHT hypothesis. Roark was convicted in 2000. Sween said the same "child abuse expert" testified for the state in both Roark and Roberson’s trials. “The new filing shows how a huge amount of her testimony was virtually identical in these two cases in which she had diagnosed SBS and then gave a graphic opinion of her belief that both men had committed child abuse through violent shaking and blunt impact,” Sween said. “It does not make sense that the state of Texas would admit that the science has changed and a new trial is necessary in one county (Dallas) but not acknowledge the same changed science in another county (Anderson).” In their filings, Roberson legal team said both convictions hinged on the hypothesis that a child was the victim of intentionally inflicted violent shaking and head trauma known as Shaken Baby Syndrome; that “both cases were tried in the same era (2000 and 2003, respectively) when a version of SBS, now universally rejected, was viewed as medical orthodoxy; and both trials featured the very same child abuse expert, Dr. Janet Squires – who opined that three medical findings, often referred to as the “triad” of subdural bleeding, cerebral edema aka brain swelling and retinal hemorrhage – supported the inference that abusive shaking/blunt impact was inflicted on a child.”
--------------------------------------------------------------
PASSAGE ONE OF THE DAY: "In a brief of opposition, Mr. Roberson’s attorneys argue that Nikki died from “severe undiagnosed pneumonia that caused her to cease breathing, collapse, and turn blue before she was discovered unconscious.” Rather than identifying this pneumonia, doctors prescribed Nikki with a dangerous medication that is no longer given to young children, as it is known to suppress respiration in already infected lungs. “There was a tragic, untimely death of a sick child whose impaired, impoverished father did not know how to explain what has confounded the medical community for decades,” the petition outlines."
———————————————————————————
PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "In 2003, there was a medical consensus that a child with a specific set of internal conditions, all of which were present in Nikki’s case, must have been shaken or struck with a blunt object. Mr. Roberson brought Nikki to the hospital and was unable to explain the issues that his chronically ill daughter faced. At the hospital, staff were unaware that Mr. Roberson has autism, and misconstrued his demeanor as lack of concern for his daughter. Using one physician’s hypothesis that Nikki’s death was the result of shaken baby syndrome, police arrested Mr. Roberson prior to an autopsy being performed. At trial, Mr. Roberson’s attorney ignored his claims of innocence, instead conceding to the prosecution’s argument that it was a “classic” shaken baby case, but that Mr. Roberson lacked intent to kill his daughter. The prosecution also presented misleading evidence from a nurse suggesting that Nikki was sexually assaulted, despite the fact that the medical examiner and further testing failed to confirm her speculations."
——————————————————————————————
PASSAGE THREE OF THE DAY: "The suggestion argues that another case, Ex parte Roark, also pending before the TCCA, shows that “the State conceded the falsity of virtually identical expert testimony on the shaken baby hypothesis.” Both Mr. Roberson and Mr. Roark were sentenced to death more than two decades ago using this theory and testimony from the same child abuse expert. The Dallas County prosecutor has conceded that Mr. Roark should receive a new trial because of changes to scientific knowledge, but DA Mitchell’s office has continuously argued that the science in Mr. Roberson’s case has not changed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
POST: "Anderson County, Texas District Attorney Requests Execution for Robert Roberson, Despite a Conviction Obtained with Debunked Forensic Science," published by The Death Penalty Information Center, on June 20 2024.
GIST: "On June 17, 2024, Anderson County District Attorney Allyson Mitchell filed a motion to set an execution date for Texas death row prisoner Robert Roberson, despite his steadfast maintenance of innocence in the death of his two-year-old daughter.
Mr. Roberson has spent more than 20 years on death row for a crime that, according to the Innocence Project, “never occurred and a conviction based on the outdated and now debunked shaken baby hypothesis.”
New evidence indicates that Mr. Roberson’s daughter, Nikki, died from a combination of both accidental and natural causes.
In a brief of opposition, Mr. Roberson’s attorneys argue that Nikki died from “severe undiagnosed pneumonia that caused her to cease breathing, collapse, and turn blue before she was discovered unconscious.”
Rather than identifying this pneumonia, doctors prescribed Nikki with a dangerous medication that is no longer given to young children, as it is known to suppress respiration in already infected lungs.
“There was a tragic, untimely death of a sick child whose impaired, impoverished father did not know how to explain what has confounded the medical community for decades,” the petition outlines.
At the time of DA Mitchell’s request for an execution date, Mr. Roberson’s Motion for Notice and Opportunity to Be Heard Before Any Execution Date is Set, requesting a court hearing, remains pending before Texas’ 3rd Judicial District Court.
This motion explains that, since June 2016, Mr. Roberson’s attorneys have developed new evidence of his factual innocence in the death of his daughter.
Mr. Roberson has another pending suggestion in front of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (TCCA), asking the Court to reconsider their previous ruling.
The suggestion argues that another case, Ex parte Roark, also pending before the TCCA, shows that “the State conceded the falsity of virtually identical expert testimony on the shaken baby hypothesis.”
Both Mr. Roberson and Mr. Roark were sentenced to death more than two decades ago using this theory and testimony from the same child abuse expert.
The Dallas County prosecutor has conceded that Mr. Roark should receive a new trial because of changes to scientific knowledge, but DA Mitchell’s office has continuously argued that the science in Mr. Roberson’s case has not changed.
In 2003, there was a medical consensus that a child with a specific set of internal conditions, all of which were present in Nikki’s case, must have been shaken or struck with a blunt object.
Mr. Roberson brought Nikki to the hospital and was unable to explain the issues that his chronically ill daughter faced.
At the hospital, staff were unaware that Mr. Roberson has autism, and misconstrued his demeanor as lack of concern for his daughter.
Using one physician’s hypothesis that Nikki’s death was the result of shaken baby syndrome, police arrested Mr. Roberson prior to an autopsy being performed.
At trial, Mr. Roberson’s attorney ignored his claims of innocence, instead conceding to the prosecution’s argument that it was a “classic” shaken baby case, but that Mr. Roberson lacked intent to kill his daughter.
The prosecution also presented misleading evidence from a nurse suggesting that Nikki was sexually assaulted, despite the fact that the medical examiner and further testing failed to confirm her speculations.
In 2013, the Texas legislature passed a law that allows prisoners to challenge their wrongful convictions “by showing that changes in the field of forensic science either undermined the integrity of the criminal trials that led to their convictions or exonerated the defendant.”
Since the passage of this law, zero prisoners on Texas’ death row have successfully raised claims under this law, including Mr. Roberson.
Gretchen Sween, one of Mr. Roberson’s attorneys, said that “each of the shaken baby premises used to convict and sentence Mr. Roberson to death, considered medical orthodoxy in 2003, has since been debunked by evidence-based science.
The courts or Governor Abbott must stop this miscarriage of justice before it is too late.”
Across the US, at least 18 states have formally exonerated parents and caregivers wrongfully convicted under the shaken baby hypothesis, according to the National Registry of Exonerations."
The entire post can be read at:
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/news/anderson-county-texas-district-attorney-requests-execution-for-robert-roberson-despite-a-conviction-obtained-with-debunked-forensic-science
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog.
SEE BREAKDOWN OF SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG, AT THE LINK BELOW: HL:
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985
———————————————————————————————
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
———————————————————————--
