Eleven years ago, Texas lawmakers passed what would become known as the state’s “junk science” law, allowing courts to overturn convictions later found to have hinged on discredited forensic evidence. It was the latest in a series of bipartisan reforms, starting around the mid-2000s, aimed at rethinking Texas’ uncompromising lock-‘em-up attitude that had made the state the face of mass incarceration in America. With the state prison system buckling, lawmakers fashioned a new bipartisan approach that rejected calls for more lockups and focused instead on treatment and diversion, winning national acclaim that was also later extended to the first-of-its-kind junk science law.
That statute is drawing renewed attention as a bipartisan group of House lawmakers embark on a last-ditch attempt to forestall the execution of Robert Roberson, who has turned to the law to dispute his 2003 conviction for killing his 2-year-old daughter, Nikki. Roberson’s lawyers have presented evidence they say invalidates the finding that his daughter died from shaken baby syndrome, a serious brain injury that critics say has been too broadly applied, including in cases where a head injury could be the result of an accident. Roberson’s appeal has underscored the fact that Texas’ highest criminal court has never granted a new trial to anyone on death row under the junk science law.
And as the statute has remained hamstrung for the last decade, so too has Texas’ broader pursuit of criminal.
