Mark Davis: Halting Roberson execution was right, but let’s hear from all sides | Opinion
Robert Roberson is still alive. That is either the welcome avoidance of an unjust execution or a terrible hijacking of the Texas judicial system.
When he brought his 2-year-old daughter, Nikki, to the hospital in January 2002 with injuries he said arose from a fall from her bed, doctors and nurses grew skeptical after she died. The resulting investigation led to charges against Roberson for murder, based on testimony that her injuries were the result of additional violence at his hands. He was convicted and sent to Texas death row in early 2003.
Appeals were rejected by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in 2007, and by the U.S. 5th District Court of Appeals in 2015. Roberson was to have been executed last week, until everything stopped.
The process ground to a halt because of a successful campaign by a bipartisan Texas House committee to stall it. The leaders’ wildly unconventional tactic of subpoenaing an imminently doomed man found unanimous favor with the state Supreme Court, which bypassed the constitutional norm of leaving the power of such delays exclusively in the hands of the governor.
The bipartisan committee’s crusade is based on its unanimous belief that recent evidence creates sufficient doubt to spare Roberson his date with the needle. Democrats on the committee may be driven by death penalty opposition in general, but they are partnered with Republican death penalty proponents, whose concerns thus carry more weight.
On Monday, the committee welcomed an all-star lineup of figures asserting that executing Roberson is a gross injustice. “Dr. Phil” McGraw and famed attorney/author John Grisham weighed in, revealing considerable familiarity with the case. They were followed by a woman whose connection to the drama was even more impactful.
Juror Terre Compton, one of 12 who sent Roberson to death row, now tearfully regrets her decision and bristles at those who insist the wheels have turned properly. She was the highlight of a banner day designed to create a wave of sentiment that Roberson deserves a new trial.
But that argument has run into a buzzsaw of high-level opposition. Gov. Greg Abbott filed a brief with the state Supreme Court, opposing its intervention on behalf of a committee that has “stepped out of line.” Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office warns that their maneuver pushes to the state to the “brink of a constitutional crisis.”
On Wednesday, Paxton ratcheted his objections up to full condemnation in a release calling out the “lies” of the committee, featuring details of evidence that bolsters the case for proceeding with the execution.
Their opposition has merit. The entire Texas death penalty could be derailed if future committees can find some basis for interrupting the proper court process that leads to the successful completion of death sentences.
But the question hangs heavy: Did that process play out properly in the Roberson case? We can argue about procedural issues, but it is a literal matter of life and death if the state kills an undeserving inmate. As a staunch advocate of capital punishment, I share the view of the pro-death penalty lawmakers on the committee who declare that our side should take particular care to make sure that the system aspires to the highest level of reliability.
So, we land at the bottom line: Is the case against Robert Roberson solid enough to warrant his death? I have spoken to many who say no, and many who say yes, including attorneys who say the committee members have cherry-picked supposedly exculpatory evidence in their zeal to spring him. A committee with no dissenting voices would have done well to welcome at least one witness who believes that Roberson was about to get exactly what he deserves. Additionally, their quest to parade him to the Capitol to testify in person smacked of a sensational play for public sentiment.
Advocates for his execution employ their share of emotional ammo as well, floating the concept of “justice for Nikki,” which we all want, but not at the cost of an unwarranted execution. There was singular and righteous value to one conversation I had in recent days, with the older brother of the little girl who died so tragically almost 23 years ago.
Matthew Bowman lives in Elkhart, Texas, where he is a maintenance mechanic for a feed mill. He was 4 when his sister died. His 4-year-old daughter is named for her. Today, he carries dim, distant memories of their brief shared time and a steadfast belief that her father killed her.
He has company in that belief, and there would be value in hearing those arguments alongside the Roberson rescue chorus in an appropriate judicial, not political environment, with a guarantee of both sides getting a chance to make their best case.
A new trial seems unlikely, but a gubernatorial reprieve would allow time for Roberson’s attorneys to petition the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which could then decide whether to allow an airing of all sides on the question of Roberson’s guilt.
We have arrived at this current pause through a method that should not be repeated, but here we are. We can’t un-execute anyone, so count me among those supporting a final opportunity to evaluate the argument that Roberson should die. Additional clarity on that question would constitute justice for all of us.
