reuters.com
www.reuters.com
Texas Supreme Court halts execution of Robert Roberson

Lawmakers subpoena Roberson to testify, creating unprecedented legal clash

Roberson guilt questioned by many including lawmakers, lead detective in his case

Oct 17 (Reuters) - The Texas Supreme Court on Thursday temporarily halted the execution of a man scheduled to become the first person to be put to death in the United States for murder attributed to shaken baby syndrome, according to a court document.

The Texas Supreme Court ruled in favor of a bipartisan group of state lawmakers who asked that the execution, scheduled to take place on Thursday evening, be delayed.

The lawmakers requested the delay after issuing an unprecedented subpoena on Wednesday for death row inmate Robert Roberson to appear before them and answer questions about his case.

Texas representatives Joe Moody and Jeff Leach, who orchestrated Roberson’s subpoena and have championed his cause, praised the Texas Supreme Court decision in a written statement.

  • TallonMetroid@lemmy.worldEnglish
    37·
    30 days ago

    Texas choosing to not execute a man (for now)? Surprising, but not unwelcome.

    Also:

    In a response to that petition, the Texas Attorney General’s Office said Roberson had failed to prove his “actual innocence,” and that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals had ruled Nikki’s injuries were “inconsistent with a short fall from a bed or complications from a virus.”

    That’s… not how the burdern of proof works at all?

    • GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml
      21·
      30 days ago

      That’s… not how the burdern of proof works at all?

      Frustratingly, I believe that’s how it works when attempting to overturn a conviction - as you are already convicted, you are assumed to be guilty and as such have to prove your innocence.

      • Miles O'Brien@startrek.websiteEnglish
        61·
        30 days ago

        You’d think if the state were so sure of its case, it would happily continue to prove guilt later on and wouldn’t need to rely on PRESUMED guilt.

        • GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml
          4·
          30 days ago

          It would in the very least be reasonable to require this standard in cases where the primary evidence used for the conviction has been disproven.