Capital Punishment Case Highlights Law Concerning Discredited Scientific Evidence

As methods of collecting scientific evidence advanced, story after story came out about people whose wrongful convictions were overturned because of DNA testing or some other type of scientific review proved that the allegations used to convict them were faulty. Texas responded to this phenomenon in 2013 by enacting what is know as the “Junk Science Law.” This provision allows individuals convicted of crimes to seek relief if the scientific evidence used in their cases is later discredited.

While the law was based on good intentions, there have been questions as to whether it is being applied in a way that gives wrongly convicted individuals a true chance to undo the injustice perpetrated against them. The last-minute reprieve for Robert Roberson, who was sentenced to death in connection with the death of his two-year-old daughter, places new focus on the Junk Science Law and whether it has lived up to its potential over the past decade. 

Roberson was convicted after prosecutors argued that her injuries were consistent with shaken baby syndrome (SBS). At the time of his trial, SBS was widely accepted as scientific fact. However, in the years since, the credibility of SBS has been increasingly questioned, with many experts now regarding it as a diagnosis prone to misinterpretation and overuse. Roberson and his lawyers believe that evidence regarding his daughter’s pneumonia and respiratory-suppressing medications might be sufficient to exonerate him. 

Despite the evolving science, Roberson’s appeals for relief under the Junk Science Law have been denied. Supporters argue that his case exposes systemic flaws in how Texas courts interpret and apply the law. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has been accused of deliberately narrowing the scope of the legislation, making it difficult for defendants like Roberson to benefit from its intended protections. 

Critics of the Court of Criminal Appeals argue that its restrictive interpretations weaken the law’s ability to rectify wrongful convictions. By demanding an excessively high burden of proof or dismissing new scientific evidence as insufficiently definitive, the court has been accused of undermining the law’s purpose. A majority of the cases where relief was granted involved non-matching DNA, as opposed to other types of questionable scientific evidence, such as the SBS allegations used to convict Roberson of murder. 

Advocates emphasize the importance of aligning legal standards with the evolving nature of science, ensuring that justice is not hindered by outdated methods or rigid judicial interpretations. After Roberson’s execution by lethal objection, originally scheduled for October, was postponed, he was slated to speak to the Texas House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee regarding the limitations on the Junk Science Law. However, that testimony was also postponed. 

The Texas Junk Science Law was a bold step forward in preventing wrongful convictions, but cases like Roberson’s highlight its limitations in practice. Addressing these challenges requires a commitment to scientific integrity and judicial fairness. At Tylden Shaeffer, Attorney at Law, P.C. in San Antonio, I draw on my extensive knowledge of Texas criminal law to defend clients accused of murder and other serious offenses. For a consultation, please call (210) 227-1500 or contact me online to schedule a consultation. My office is in San Antonio.  

By Tylden Shaeffer | Published January 20, 2025 | Posted in Homicide Offenses | Tagged convictions, evidence, scientific, wrongful