Robert Roberson still alive: Innocence Project,Executed in texas update,Petition

On October 9, 2025, in a dramatic turn in one of Texas’s most controversial death-penalty cases, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals issued an emergency stay of execution for Robert Leslie Roberson III, scheduled to die on October 16, 2025.  This stay does not resolve the question of his guilt or innocence, but it does mean that, as of now, Robert Roberson is still alive and his execution is paused. 

Roberson’s case has drawn national attention—not only because of the stakes (his life) but also because it raises key issues about forensic science (particularly the “shaken baby syndrome” hypothesis), reliability of convictions, autism and bias, and legal reforms in Texas. In this article, we delve into the background of Roberson’s conviction, the efforts by the Innocence Project and others, the latest legal developments, and the status of public petitions and activism.

Background: The Case of Robert Roberson

The Basic Facts

• Robert Roberson was born November 10, 1966.

• In 2002, Roberson’s 2-year-old daughter, Nikki Curtis, died after falling ill. 

• Prosecutors claimed that Nikki’s death resulted from shaken baby syndrome (SBS): that Roberson violently shook her, inflicting fatal brain injuries. 

• He was convicted of capital murder in 2003 and sentenced to death.

• His appeals over many years were unsuccessful, and an execution warrant was issued. 

Roberson spent over two decades on Texas’s death row, maintaining his innocence throughout. 

The Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS) Theory and Its Problems

At the time of Roberson’s trial, the frontier of forensic medicine widely accepted SBS (or “abusive head trauma”) as a valid diagnosis when certain signs were present—such as subdural hemorrhage, retinal hemorrhage, and brain swelling. 

But over recent decades, SBS has become increasingly controversial. Many medical experts now argue that the classical “triad” used to infer SBS can also arise from natural causes, illness, or accidental injury, and that in many cases the original diagnosis was overreaching. 

In Roberson’s case, his defense contends that Nikki had severe pneumonia (viral and bacterial), was prescribed medications that suppressed breathing, and that she fell from her bed (a short fall) — any or a combination of which could explain the medical findings without assuming violent shaking. 

Moreover, the same pediatrician who testified against Roberson in his trial also testified in Ex Parte Roark—a more recent Texas case—where the Court of Criminal Appeals overturned the prior SBS-based conviction, citing that the scientific basis was unreliable. The defense has urged the courts to treat Roberson’s case as materially similar. 

Further complicating matters is the argument that Roberson is autistic, and that at trial, prosecutors and jurors misinterpreted his demeanor (for example, perceived lack of emotion) as callous or guilty. 

Thus, at the heart of this case lies a battle between old forensic orthodoxy (SBS) and newer scientific critique.

The Role of the Innocence Project and Legal Advocacy

The Innocence Project, a nationally known nonprofit dedicated to exonerating wrongfully convicted individuals, has taken up Roberson’s cause.  Their involvement has been both advocacy (raising public awareness, petitioning) and legal support (helping craft new filings, mobilizing expert reports). 

Some highlights of their efforts:

• They have launched a petition titled “Stop the Oct. 16 Execution of Robert Roberson”, arguing that executing someone on discredited scientific grounds would be a grave miscarriage of justice. 

• They filed emergency motions in Texas courts seeking a stay of execution and reconsideration of Roberson’s claims of innocence, pointing to new scientific evidence. 

• They emphasize the applicability of Texas’s “junk science” statute (Texas Code Article 11.073), which allows convicts to seek relief if their convictions rely on scientific evidence that has since been discredited. 

• They reference the Ex Parte Roark decision (October 2024) as a directly relevant precedent undermining the SBS theory used in Roberson’s trial. 

• They coordinate expert witness reports from pathologists, neurologists, pediatricians, and forensic scientists challenging the state’s original evidence. 

Thus, the Innocence Project’s involvement significantly elevates the legal, scientific, and public pressure on Texas authorities.

Legal Developments & Execution Timeline

Earlier Execution Attempts

• In 2024, a prior execution warrant was set for October 17, 2024, but last-minute court action delayed it. 

• Texas state legislators intervened: 86 lawmakers requested that the “junk science” law be applied in Roberson’s case. 

• The Texas Supreme Court reinstated a temporary restraining order requested by lawmakers, preventing the execution from proceeding. 

But in late 2024, several key legal filings were denied by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals—without a full merits review of the new evidence. 

New Execution Date & Renewed Motions (2025)

• On July 16, 2025, a Texas district judge set a new execution date: October 16, 2025. 

• On June 16, 2025, Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a motion in an Anderson County court seeking to schedule Roberson’s execution—an unusual move for the AG’s office. 

• Roberson’s legal team filed motions in 2025 urging the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to reconsider his claims and grant relief based on new evidence. 

• In those filings, they pointed to the Ex Parte Roark decision, which had overturned an SBS-based conviction and recognized the shifting science. 

• The court considered whether the earlier denial of relief under Article 11.073 was erroneous. 

Stay of Execution (October 9, 2025)

On October 9, 2025, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals formally stayed Roberson’s execution, citing the need to reexamine the case under the state’s junk science statute. 

The stay directs a lower (trial) court to review Roberson’s newly submitted evidence and determine whether it justifies a new trial. 

Importantly, the stay does not yet grant a new trial or exoneration; it merely suspends the execution and returns the case to a lower court for further proceedings. 

What Happens Next?

• The trial court in Anderson County must consider whether the evidence Roberson’s lawyers presented is sufficient to merit a new trial. 

• After that review, the trial court may either deny or recommend granting a new trial; the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals will likely have final say. 

• The defense could also press for clemency, though in a previous filing, Roberson reportedly waived his clemency petition to focus on litigating a new trial. 

• Meanwhile, public, scientific, and legislative pressure may influence how courts treat the case of SBS-based convictions going forward.

Thus, while Roberson is still alive, his fate remains uncertain and hinges on legal review ahead.

Is There Credible Reason to Believe He Is Actually Innocent?

The question—“Was Roberson wrongfully convicted?”—is fiercely contested. Below is a breakdown of the key arguments and counterarguments.

Arguments Supporting Innocence Claims

1. Flawed Science / Discredited SBS Theory

   • The foundation of his conviction (violent shaking as cause of death) rests on SBS, a model increasingly criticized in scientific circles. 

   • A directly comparable case (Roark) was overturned by the same court based on the same expert’s testimony. 

2. Alternative Medical Explanations

   • Roberson’s defense argues Nikki had severe viral and bacterial pneumonia, progressed to sepsis, and possibly had medications (like codeine or Phenergan) that suppressed respiratory function. 

   • Nikki reportedly had a fever (over 104°F) prior to death and possibly a short fall from her bed. 

   • Some bruising noted in the autopsy may have been post-mortem or a result of medical intervention. 

3. Autism & Misinterpretation of Behavior

   • Roberson was later diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, which may explain what was perceived as cold or unemotional responses during hearings or interrogations. 

   • Some investigators, including the original detective Brian Wharton, have since questioned the original conviction or aspects of the investigation. 

4. Legislative & Expert Support

   • 86 Texas state legislators wrote in support of applying the junk science statute to Roberson’s case. 

   • Dozens of medical professionals, forensic scientists, disability advocates, and innocence-movement attorneys have submitted letters backing his clemency or retrial requests.

Taken together, these arguments do not conclusively prove innocence (in a legal sense), but they offer a compelling case that the original conviction may rest on shaky grounds.

Counterarguments & Challenges

1. Prosecutorial & Judicial Reliance on SBS at Time of Trial

   • At the time of Roberson’s trial, SBS was broadly accepted in many jurisdictions. The prosecution will likely argue that the original jury was justified to rely on it.

   • Subsequent scientific critiques may not retroactively discredit every prior SBS-based conviction. Courts often weigh new science cautiously.

2. Judicial Reluctance / Procedural Bars

   • Roberson has already exhausted many appeals; courts typically impose heavy procedural thresholds for reopening final convictions.

   • Some courts may say the defense’s new evidence should have been presented earlier (though supporters argue many of those expert reports are newly available).

3. Defense Burden of Proof

   • In seeking a new trial or relief under Article 11.073, Roberson’s team must show that no rational juror would convict given the new evidence—that’s a high bar. 

Given all this, the question of actual innocence remains unsettled in court, but the case is now being reexamined under evolving scientific, legal, and public scrutiny.

Petition & Public Campaign

The Petition

The Innocence Project’s online petition, “Stop the Oct. 16 Execution of Robert Roberson”, argues:

• Roberson is an autistic father wrongly convicted under now-debunked SBS theory. 

• If executed, he would be the first person in the United States put to death based solely on SBS. 

• It urges the State of Texas to halt the execution and allow his case to be properly reviewed under modern scientific standards. 

Such petitions serve multiple roles: raising awareness, mobilizing public pressure, and providing a record for courts and officials to consider public sentiment.

Media, Advocacy & Legislative Support

• Media outlets (e.g. People, The Guardian, AP News) have amplified Roberson’s story, often focusing on the scientific controversy around SBS and the possibility of executing an innocent man. 

• Some notable supporters include author John Grisham (who is reportedly writing a non-fiction book about the case) and public figures such as Dr. Phil McGraw. 

• Texas lawmakers from both parties have intervened. Their actions include writing formal letters urging application of the junk science statute, attempting to subpoena Roberson to testify before legislative committees, and seeking temporary court orders to halt his execution. 

• For instance, the Texas Legislature’s Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence held a surprise hearing the day before Roberson’s 2024 execution date, issued a subpoena, and effectively delayed aspects of the execution process. 

• Some advocacy groups relating to disability rights, legal reform, abolition of the death penalty, and medical ethics have also issued statements backing Roberson.

Thus far, the combined petition, media attention, and legislative energy have contributed to the stay and renewed public scrutiny.

Challenges, Risks & Criticisms

While Roberson’s case has momentum, there are significant obstacles.

1. No guarantee of exoneration or new trial

   • A stay only pauses execution; subsequent review may reject his claims.

   • Even if a new trial is granted, he could be reconvicted.

2. Resistance from prosecutors and courts

   • The Texas Attorney General’s office actively pushed to set a new execution date in 2025. 

   • Some judicial authorities have already denied relief or refused full merits examination. 

   • Legal doctrines (like procedural default, limitations on successive habeas petitions) may limit what courts can do.

3. Scientific and evidentiary contention

   • The state may counter with new expert testimony defending some form of SBS theory or other alternative interpretations.

   • It may argue that some of the defense’s new reports are speculative or not sufficiently robust.

4. Public and political pressure fluctuations

   • Public support may wax and wane; political will can be fickle.

   • The case could become polarized or overshadowed.

5. Time constraints

   • Even though execution was stayed, courts may rush timelines.

   • Delays in expert report submissions, court scheduling, or appeals could limit thorough review.

Nonetheless, the fact that Roberson is still alive, with his execution blocked, offers at least the possibility of justice being served—or at least of serious reexamination.

Is Robert Roberson “Still Alive”?

Yes — legally and factually. Thanks to the October 2025 stay, Roberson remains on death row; his execution has not occurred. 

However, the phrasing “still alive” can carry deeper implications — some supporters mean “Is his innocence recognized? Will he be exonerated? Will he ever be free?” The answer to those is unresolved and rests on the outcome of the ongoing court reviews and potential appeal.

Thus, while his life in the narrow sense continues, his future remains precarious.

Key Questions to Watch Going Forward

1. Will the trial court recommend a new trial?
   The lower court’s interpretation of the new expert reports is crucial. If it finds the evidence compelling, it may recommend retrial.

2. Will the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals accept or reject that recommendation?
   The CCA has final say on statewide capital cases, and may either accept, reject, or remand further.

3. Will any court grant outright relief or vacate the conviction?
   Though rare, if the evidence is overwhelming and procedural conditions permit, a court might vacate.

4. Will clemency be considered?
   Roberson reportedly waived his clemency plea in favor of pursuing a retrial, but new developments could reopen that question. 

5. Will legislative or executive action influence the case?
   Changes in Texas law (especially regarding junk science and forensic evidence) or pressure from new legislators or governors could matter.

6. Will this case prompt broader reform or reexamination of SBS convictions?
   Roberson’s case is already being viewed as a precedent for challenging other convictions built on now-contested forensic theories.

Conclusion

Robert Roberson is indeed still alive—but that fact does not signal final vindication. His life has been spared, for now, by a legal stay, and his case is again subject to scrutiny under evolving scientific standards and public pressure.

Whether he will be exonerated, retried, or forever remain in limbo depends on a confluence of legal strategy, scientific credibility, judicial willingness, and public advocacy. The Innocence Project, petitioner campaigns, expert witnesses, and legislative actors have succeeded in pulling the case back into the light. But many hurdles remain.