PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Following an April status hearing, both Roberson’s defense and the state filed supplemental briefs addressing the impact of a 2025 Dallas County case involving a man named Andrew Roark, who was freed after spending 24 years in prison for a shaken baby conviction..........Additionally, Roberson’s defense filed a notice regarding the case of a Jefferson County man who in 2004 was also convicted in connection with shaken baby syndrome. Much like Roberson, the man’s case was remanded in light of the Andrew Roark case and, after reviewing new evidence, the trial judge recommended he receive a new trial."
-------------------------------------------
STORY: "Judge weighing new briefs, evidence in Robert Roberson shaken baby case," by Reporter Travis Noriega, published by KLTV, on July 14, 2026.
Robert Roberson at the Texas Department of Criminal Justice's Polunsky Unit in Livingston on Dec. 19, 2023. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has requested a new execution date for Roberson.(Ilana Panich-Linsman for The Innocence Project)
Following an April status hearing, both Roberson’s defense and the state filed supplemental briefs addressing the impact of a 2025 Dallas County case involving a man named Andrew Roark, who was freed after spending 24 years in prison for a shaken baby conviction.
The briefs were originally due May 29, but an extension was granted, giving both parties until June 12 to submit their briefs.
On June 18, the state filed an out-of-time motion for another extension, but it was not granted. The state also filed its supplemental brief on the same day, and it will be considered despite being late.
Roberson’s defense also filed a motion for an in-person hearing to review the briefs as “it would be unreasonable to assume that the presiding judge has had an opportunity to fully analyze the massive evidentiary record.”
Additionally, Roberson’s defense filed a notice regarding the case of a Jefferson County man who in 2004 was also convicted in connection with shaken baby syndrome. Much like Roberson, the man’s case was remanded in light of the Andrew Roark case and, after reviewing new evidence, the trial judge recommended he receive a new trial.
GIST: Judge Austin Reeve Jackson is reviewing competing legal filings in the case of a Palestine man convicted of killing his infant daughter, including arguments over whether new evidence should be admitted.
Robert Roberson, of Palestine, was convicted in 2003 of the 2002 murder of his daughter, Nikki.
In October 2025, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals paused Roberson’s execution just days before he was set to be the first person in the U.S. to be executed for a conviction tied to “shaken baby syndrome.”
Robert Roberson, of Palestine, was convicted in 2003 of the 2002 murder of his daughter, Nikki.
In October 2025, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals paused Roberson’s execution just days before he was set to be the first person in the U.S. to be executed for a conviction tied to “shaken baby syndrome.”
Where the case stands;
Robert Roberson at the Texas Department of Criminal Justice's Polunsky Unit in Livingston on Dec. 19, 2023. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has requested a new execution date for Roberson.(Ilana Panich-Linsman for The Innocence Project)
Following an April status hearing, both Roberson’s defense and the state filed supplemental briefs addressing the impact of a 2025 Dallas County case involving a man named Andrew Roark, who was freed after spending 24 years in prison for a shaken baby conviction.
The briefs were originally due May 29, but an extension was granted, giving both parties until June 12 to submit their briefs.
On June 18, the state filed an out-of-time motion for another extension, but it was not granted. The state also filed its supplemental brief on the same day, and it will be considered despite being late.
Roberson’s defense also filed a motion for an in-person hearing to review the briefs as “it would be unreasonable to assume that the presiding judge has had an opportunity to fully analyze the massive evidentiary record.”
Additionally, Roberson’s defense filed a notice regarding the case of a Jefferson County man who in 2004 was also convicted in connection with shaken baby syndrome. Much like Roberson, the man’s case was remanded in light of the Andrew Roark case and, after reviewing new evidence, the trial judge recommended he receive a new trial.
The evidence dispute
Roberson’s defense also filed a motion to admit additional evidence such as a letter from a doctor written in 2000 about Nikki’s health problems and other documents that weren’t used in the original trial.
On July 2, the state opposed the defense’s motion to admit additional evidence, and on July 10 the defense filed a rebuttal to that opposition.
The state’s argument centers on the absence of a specific filing from the judge that outlines issues for a hearing or trial, sets parameters for briefing, and narrows the scope of admissible evidence. Without that order, the state argues, new evidence cannot yet be allowed.
Roberson’s defense argues that the filing is not needed in a case like this, where the higher court has already told the trial court to move forward with a resolution and the parties have already agreed that additional evidence needs to be considered.
Roberson’s defense cites several cases as precedent, including prior developments in Roberson’s own case.
Roberson’s defense also filed a motion to admit additional evidence such as a letter from a doctor written in 2000 about Nikki’s health problems and other documents that weren’t used in the original trial.
On July 2, the state opposed the defense’s motion to admit additional evidence, and on July 10 the defense filed a rebuttal to that opposition.
The state’s argument centers on the absence of a specific filing from the judge that outlines issues for a hearing or trial, sets parameters for briefing, and narrows the scope of admissible evidence. Without that order, the state argues, new evidence cannot yet be allowed.
Roberson’s defense argues that the filing is not needed in a case like this, where the higher court has already told the trial court to move forward with a resolution and the parties have already agreed that additional evidence needs to be considered.
Roberson’s defense cites several cases as precedent, including prior developments in Roberson’s own case.
What comes next
Jackson is now tasked with reviewing the supplemental briefs, the competing arguments over new evidence and the evidence itself.
From there, Jackson has several options, including granting the motion for an in-person hearing or calling for a new status conference.
Ultimately, Jackson is responsible for making a recommendation to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals regarding Roberson’s case.
The entire story can be read at:
https://www.kltv.com/2026/07/14/judge-weighing-briefs-new-evidence-robert-roberson-shaken-baby-case/
Jackson is now tasked with reviewing the supplemental briefs, the competing arguments over new evidence and the evidence itself.
From there, Jackson has several options, including granting the motion for an in-person hearing or calling for a new status conference.
Ultimately, Jackson is responsible for making a recommendation to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals regarding Roberson’s case.
The entire story can be read at:
https://www.kltv.com/2026/07/14/judge-weighing-briefs-new-evidence-robert-roberson-shaken-baby-case/
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. 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. 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;
