In Texas, the "junk science law," which was intended to overturn convictions rooted in discredited scientific evidence, is under scrutiny for its failure to provide the relief it promised. According to a Texas Tribune report, people on Texas death row have been left grappling with the reality that the statute, Article 11.073 of the Texas criminal code, has not resulted in any new trials for death row inmates since its enactment in 2013.
One notable case caught in this dilemma is that of Robert Roberson, convicted in 2003 of killing his daughter. Despite Roberson and his legal team's efforts to apply the law after evidence against shaken baby syndrome—the cornerstone of his conviction—began to disintegrate, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reaffirmed his sentence. Since September 2013 through December 2023, of the 74 applications filed under the junk science law, the court has been critiqued for applying a higher than necessary burden on convicts and ruling against non-DNA-related evidence appeals, the Texas Defender Service disclosed.
"If Mr. Roberson can’t get relief under 11.073, then the statute is not fulfilling what it was intended to," Vanessa Potkin, one of his attorneys and the director of special litigation at the Innocence Project, told the Texas Tribune. This law was designed to redress convictions prompted by now-questionable or debunked forensic methods yet continues to fall short of expectations, particularly in capital cases where lives hinge on its promise.
The overarching issue appears to be the court's adherence to a standard of proof that goes beyond the law's intent, asking individuals to prove their innocence rather than the fallibility of scientific evidence used in their convictions. This conflation of an innocence claim and a junk science claim has been critiqued, further complicated by procedural dismissals that foreclose substantive evaluation of cases, as per insights from the Texas Defender Service report. The court, in the face of these criticisms, maintains its stance of not engaging in speculation or addressing specific cases, as conveyed by its spokesperson, Deana Williamson.
Amidst the legal tussles, the clock ticks for Roberson, who faces execution on October 17. His advocates insist that newfound medical evidence points away from shaken baby syndrome and towards natural or accidental causes, such as severe pneumonia. Nonetheless, the state persists in its assertion that the evidence backing Roberson’s conviction is unshaken.
