In the wake of the fraught legal skirmish to spare Robert Roberson from death row, the Texas Attorney General’s recent narrative reshaping has been met with staunch opposition from both Roberson’s legal representatives and members of the Texas House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence. AG Ken Paxton, essentially intent to assert Roberson’s guilt, has been accused by lawmakers and Roberson’s attorney of spinning the facts to fit a narrative that strays from the case’s true nature. The political climate surrounding this case has turned charged, with differing accounts of the trial and Roberson’s conviction steadily challenging public perception.
Roberson, originally set to be executed last Thursday, October 17, found himself at the center of a controversy when a subpoena from the Texas House Committee called for his testimony, effectively halting the execution. According to the Texas Tribune, the Texas Supreme Court intervened, ruling the subpoena valid and postponing Roberson’s fate. Despite claims by AG Paxton to paint Roberson as a violent individual who caused the blunt force trauma that led to the death of his daughter, Nikki, the actual evidence seemed to tell a different story—one focused on a dispute regarding the medical diagnosis of shaken baby syndrome.
From the archives of the original 2003 trial, it was clear that the narrative then was considerably different from what Paxton’s office is now attempting to articulate. “Everything that was presented to us was all about shaken baby syndrome. That is what our decision was based on,” stated Terre Compton, a juror in Roberson’s trial, in a quote offered by Texas Matters. The AG’s report has been chastised for attempting to revise the historical and legal precedents upon which the original judgment was passed…