The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ Failure to Enforce the Junk Science Writ: Robert Roberson’s Habeas Petition
Published November 16, 2025 By Alex Ellis
On October 9th, 2025, The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals issued a stay for Robert Roberson’s execution (1). However, that same court dismissed Roberson’s appeal for habeas relief in September 2024, finding that there was insufficient basis to intervene under Article 11.071 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, also known as the Texas Junk Science Writ (2). This dismissal undermines Article 11.073 and exemplifies its continuous failure.
In February 2003, Robert Roberson was found guilty of the death of his two-year-old daughter, Nikki Curtis. The nature of the crime and the fact that the victim had been under the age of six made Roberson eligible for the death penalty. He was sentenced to death based on the theory that Nikki had been shaken violently, and died from a condition known as Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS). This diagnosis was key to the prosecution’s argument, as it would explain why Nikki didn’t have any bruises (3). Additionally, when Roberson had taken an unresponsive Nikki to the hospital, nurses and other medical staff testified that he was acting in a way unusual for a father grieving his child’s death (4).
However, the science around SBS has greatly changed since Roberson’s conviction, and courts around the country have agreed that it has changed enough to impact cases. For instance, in September of 2023, The New Jersey Appellate Division upheld that SBS is not scientifically reliable enough for expert testimony in certain cases like State of New Jersey v. Darryl Nieves and State of New Jersey v. Michael Cifelli. They specifically labelled the diagnosis as “junk science” (5).
Less than a year later, the Michigan Supreme Court overturned the murder conviction of Milton Lemons, who had been convicted in 2006 on the basis of a SBS diagnosis. Michigan’s lower courts had found that biomechanical engineering evidence was inadmissible in court, throwing out expert testimony stating that shaking an infant hard enough for it to display symptoms congruent with SBS would also result in a broken neck. The Supreme Court case overturned these decisions and granted Lemons a new trial (6). People Of Michigan v. Lemons is strikingly similar to Roberson’s case, as the court examined its state’s own law surrounding the rule of evidence.
Given that courts around the country have labeled Shaken Baby Syndrome “junk science,” and that its diagnosis has not held up to medical research, it would be expected that a legal avenue as explicitly titled as the Texas Junk Science Writ would provide relief for Robert Roberson. The law states,
“A court may grant a convicted person relief on an application for a writ of habeas corpus [if] a scientific field has evolved or been discredited in the years since the conviction; individual experts who, based on further study and changes in the understanding of scientific knowledge at large, would have given a different opinion at trial under today’s scientific standards; and when new forensic testing techniques emerge that were not available at the time of trial.” (7)
Roberson’s lawyers tailored their objections to the language of the law. In his 2024 petition for habeas relief, Roberson’s lawyers assure that “relevant fields of scientific knowledge have changed since Mr. Roberson’s 2003 trial.” What’s more, “when Mr. Roberson’s subsequent writ application was filed in 2016, the Court of Criminal Appeals had already acknowledged a sea change in the medical consensus regarding the validity of SBS/AHT diagnosis” (8). This suggests that, even in 2016, the court was fully aware that Roberson is eligible for relief.
The petition describes how SBS deaths can be better explained by other factors. In Nikki’s case, she had severe pneumonia for which she had been prescribed improper medication. On top of that, it fulfills all of the requirements in Article 11.071 by presenting four highly regarded experts (Drs. Ophoven, Monson, Wigren, and Auer) who decidedly would have given a different opinion if the trial were held today. As for new forensic evidence, they bring in the same biomechanical engineering that saved Milton Lemons in People Of Michigan v. Lemons (8).
The text of the Texas Junk Science Writ is clear in its intention of granting relief for those who were convicted under science that has since evolved. And Roberson’s lawyers used literature surrounding SBS to show how they met that burden. So, why was Roberson’s appeal not granted under these grounds? The problem is not with the law, but rather, the way judges uphold it.
The court’s lack of opinions explaining its rationale for denying relief results in it having a smaller pool of written precedent. Because the legal system is based on precedent, and this precedent is lacking, the court is then free to rule on cases without assessing the law fairly. Without articulated reasoning, judicial decisions risk becoming arbitrary and unreviewable. This mismanagement of the legal system at the hand of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals causes the Texas Junk Science Writ to fail, and results in its application being unfair and disjointed. The 2024 decision on Roberson’s case creates a skewed justice system. Not only is the court disregarding the law, but it is also not providing a justification for why it has done so.
The court has continuously undermined the Texas Junk Science Writ, Robert Roberson’s case is just the most publicized, and thus, the one that points out the law’s failure most flagrantly. This failure, at best, leads to innocent Texans being left behind bars. At worst, and as might be the case for Roberson, innocent Texans being given capital punishment. Hopefully, the court’s October 9th decision can open the path for Roberson’s sentence being commuted.
Kayla Guo, “Texas court blocks execution of death row inmate Robert Roberson,” The Texas Tribune, October 9, 2025 https://innocenceproject.org/news/texas-court-of-criminal-appeals-issues-stay-execution-robert-roberson/
Ex parte Robert Leslie Roberson III, Order Denying Subsequent Application, No. WR‑63,081‑04, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (Tex. Crim. App.), September 11, 2024,
https://dpic-cdn.org/production/documents/TCCA-Denies-Robert-Roberson.pdf?dm=1726158048
Jolie McCullough, "Robert Roberson's Death Penalty Case Was Upheld Despite Shaken Baby Syndrome Concerns," The Texas Tribune, January 11, 2023, https://www.texastribune.org/2023/01/11/robert-roberson-texas-death-penalty-shaken-baby/
Hayley Bedard, “New Report Reveals Texas Junk Science Statute Fails to Adequately Provide Relief for Innocent Prisoners, Including Robert Roberson,” Death Penalty Information Center, August 5, 2024 (updated March 14, 2025), https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/new-report-reveals-texas-junk-science-statute-fails-to-adequately-provide-relief-for-innocent-prisoners-including-robert-roberson
State of New Jersey v. Darryl Nieves and State of New Jersey v. Michael Cifelli, Nos. A-2069-21 & A-2936-21, Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.), September 13, 2023, https://www.njcourts.gov/system/files/court-opinions/2023/a2069-21a2936-21.pdf
People of Michigan v. Milton Lee Lemons, No. 163939 Michigan Supreme Court (Mich. Sup. Ct.), July 25, 2024,
https://law.justia.com/cases/michigan/supreme-court/2024/163939.html
Article 11.073 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, 85th Tex. Gen. Laws, ch. 123, sec. 11.073 (2017), https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CR/htm/CR.11.htm#11.073
Ex parte Robert Leslie Roberson III, Subsequent Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus under Articles 11.071 & 11.073, No. WR-63,081, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (Tex. Crim. App.), filed August 1, 2024 https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-5753/328406/20241015222722448_Appendices%20A-I.pdf