This week, just as early voting was starting, the Texas House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee held an unprecedented hearing on the case of Robert Roberson, who was scheduled to be executed last week. Roberson was convicted of murdering his 2-year-old daughter, but in the 20 years since his conviction, advances in science and medicine have called Roberson’s guilt into serious question.
Legislators—who are responsible for enacting the laws that led to the conviction and nearly led to the execution of a possibly innocent man—have taken extraordinary steps to prevent the execution from going forward, so they can hear from Mr. Roberson and others involved in the case, and take steps to secure a re-trial.
By taking these steps, the committee has created a potential separation-of-powers crisis. Legislative bodies are expected to make laws, which the judicial branch enforces. In many cases, laws lead to unintended outcomes. In the normal course of events, legislators make needed adjustments during the regular session, or else the governor calls them back for a special session.
In this case, had lawmakers waited to act until the 2025 legislative session, Mr. Roberson would have been dead, which would have prevented legislators from hearing from him directly about circumstances that led to his conviction. Those circumstances likely will be central to the direction of legislation proposed in 2025. In Monday’s hearing, legislators heard testimony about several options for improving existing law to mitigate the kind of harm Mr. Roberson has experienced.
If this were the only instance where Texas had executed or nearly executed an innocent person, it would be important enough—but Texas has had numerous such instances, which have led advocates to call repeatedly for a moratorium on executions: a pause, to give the legislature and the courts time to review the state’s systems related to capital cases, and to establish safeguards.
For those who oppose the death penalty, a moratorium could represent an incremental step toward abolition. For people who support the death penalty, the stakes are just as high: as the committee’s star witness, “Dr. Phil,” and other witnesses opined, anyone who believes there should be a death penalty should be highly invested in making sure the public can trust the system.
The case also raises important issues beyond the mechanics of capital cases.
For starters, it highlights Texas’ inadequate indigent defense system. Despite legislative reforms over the years, Texas’ indigent defense system retains characteristics that are associated with less effective outcomes for defendants. Committee witness Terre Compton, who served on Roberson’s jury and voted to convict him, said she would “absolutely not” have voted to convict but for information that was withheld from the jury.
Texas County Indigent Defense Plans
The Roberson case also highlights the longstanding struggles of rural Texas healthcare providers, who may be under-resourced to provide advanced diagnosis and care for chronically ill, medically complex children like Roberson’s daughter. And the case illustrates the necessity for accommodations in law enforcement and criminal justice for witnesses and defendants with diagnosed and undiagnosed cognitive and behavioral health conditions.
All of these issues can be summed up in one sense as “resource needs.” Every time the legislature turns around, it faces another instance of inadequate investment in foundational local delivery systems resulting in human trauma and policy upheaval.
There are plenty of non-resource issues in the Roberson case to keep legislative committees busy in 2025, but it would be unfortunate if lawmakers did not make an evaluation of the outcomes our state’s low-tax, low-spend model yields when life and death are on the line. Getting serious about funding health and safety for 31 million Texans (and counting) could be one way to avoid future constitutional crises.