How disagreements over the guilt of a Texas death row inmate turned into a legal battle between parts of government

Register for De KorteThe Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers informed on Texas’ most essential news.

---

The Texas Supreme Court is considering whether death row inmate Robert Roberson — whose death penalty was temporarily halted last month — must testify before a Texas House committee before the state can carry out his execution.

The state’s highest civil court temporarily stayed Roberson’s execution last month after the House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee subpoenaed the man on Oct. 16 and ordered the 57-year-old East Texan convicted of killing his 2-year-old daughter called to testify about his criminal. case at the Texas Capitol four days after his scheduled execution.

That subpoena raised an unprecedented question about the separation of powers in the state constitution: Does the subpoena of legislative members override the executive branch’s power to enforce a death sentence, or is it the other way around?

Here’s what you need to know.

(There are conflicting portrayals of Robert Roberson’s murder case. Here’s what you need to know.)

The background: Roberson was convicted of killing his chronically ill 2-year-old daughter Nikki Curtis, who Roberson said fell from the bed at the family home in Palestine in 2002 before rushing her to the emergency room. A doctor diagnosed Nikki shaken baby syndromewhich presupposes abuse.

Roberson’s attorney did not dispute the diagnosis at trial, merely arguing that Roberson did not intend to kill his daughter. But in the years since the trial, new scientific and medical evidence has emerged showing that symptoms associated with shaken baby syndrome may also indicate naturally occurring medical conditions.

In multiple appeals over the past two decades, experts provided evidence that Nikki had had undiagnosed pneumonia in the days before her fall and that it had progressed to the point of sepsis and suppressed her breathing. She was also prescribed medications that were no longer given to babies.

During a recent parliamentary hearing a juror in the Roberson trial said she would not have convicted Roberson if she had received all of Nikki’s medical records, including a CT scan and a toxicology report. Gov. Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton, meanwhile insist that Roberson is guilty and that the matter has already been properly settled.

Why the Texas House committee filed a lawsuit: Members of the committee say they called Roberson to testify after hearing expert testimony about Texas’ 2013 junk science law, which allows courts to overturn a conviction when the scientific evidence at the heart of the case is in has been discredited. Roberson tried unsuccessfully to use the law to win a new trial.

After the House committee issued the subpoena, they obtained a temporary restraining order from a civil court in Travis County to halt Roberson’s execution. Paxton then filed a petition on behalf of TDCJ with the Criminal Court of Appeals, asking the state’s highest criminal court to overturn that decision because the civil court had no jurisdiction over the case. The appeals court ruled in Paxton’s favor.

But the House committee responded by filing an emergency motion with the Texas Supreme Court, the state’s highest civil court. The Chamber argued that the Court of Criminal Appeals had no jurisdiction over the case because a subpoena is a civil matter. The Supreme Court issued a temporary injunction to halt the execution and asked each party to provide legal information before making a final judgment.

What the state says: Paxton claims the court’s order forcing the state to halt a lawfully imposed criminal sentence “ignores the separation of powers.”

“The relief the House Committee is requesting here abuses the Governor’s exclusive prerogative to grant a thirty-day stay in a capital case,” Paxton’s office wrote in a legal brief. “The specific powers conferred by the Constitution on the CCA and the Governor with respect to criminal judgments and temporary reprieves respectively, therefore, necessarily trump any general subpoena.”

What the House Committee says: Lawmakers, including committee chairman Joe Moody, D-El Paso, and committee member Jeff Leach, R-Plano, allege Paxton’s office prevented TDCJ from complying with the subpoena and allowing Roberson to testify. They say issuing the subpoena did not usurp the powers of another department because Roberson’s execution was only temporarily halted and lawmakers are constitutionally allowed to hear testimony to inform policymaking.

“Given the dispute over some of the facts in Roberson’s case, the committee deemed it essential to hear from him personally to assess his credibility as a witness,” members of the House of Representatives argued in a legal brief.

Broader impact: It is unlikely that the Supreme Court’s decision in this case will directly impact whether or not Roberson is granted a new trial, as that decision would be made by a criminal court. But it could impact the Legislature’s subpoena power. And testimony from a death row inmate at the Capitol about his case would be historic.

In January, three of the five Criminal Court of Appeal judges who allowed Roberson’s execution will no longer serve on the court. If Roberson’s case somehow ends up in court and one of the new justices takes a different position, the votes could change in Roberson’s favor.

The court’s decision will also answer a new legal question about whether a statutory subpoena or an enforcement order takes precedence.

“I think what we’re seeing are checks and balances between different branches of government, which was the constitutional view in the United States and largely replicated in Texas,” said Marc Levin, chief policy counsel for the Council on Criminal Justice. “It’s healthy for that to happen.”