On October 9, 2025, Texas’ highest criminal court brought an abrupt halt to the impending execution of Robert Roberson, a 58-year-old death row inmate whose conviction has become a flashpoint in the debate over the reliability of shaken baby syndrome diagnoses. Roberson, who was scheduled to be executed on October 16 for the 2002 death of his two-year-old daughter Nikki Curtis, now finds his fate in the hands of a lower court, which has been ordered to reexamine his conviction using modern scientific standards.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ decision was anything but unanimous. In a narrow 5-4 split, the judges sent the case back to Anderson County, reflecting deep divisions not only within the legal system but also among medical experts, law enforcement, and the public. The order marks the third time Roberson’s execution has been stayed, and the second intervention in the past twelve months. According to Houston Chronicle, the ruling is seen as a victory for Roberson’s defense team and supporters, even as it leaves many questions unresolved.
Roberson’s conviction has long been mired in controversy. At the heart of the case lies the once-prevailing theory of shaken baby syndrome, a diagnosis that, over the past decade, has come under increasing scrutiny. Roberson’s attorneys, led by Gretchen Sween, have argued that the evidence used to convict him is not only outdated but fundamentally flawed. In a July 2025 appeal, they cited over 40 cases nationwide where individuals convicted under similar circumstances were later exonerated. Sween told AP, “We are relieved and grateful that members of the appeals court appreciate the parallels between Andrew Roark’s case and Robert Roberson’s.”
The Roark case, referenced repeatedly by the appeals court, has become a touchstone for advocates seeking to overturn convictions based on shaken baby syndrome. In 2024, Dallas County man Andrew Roark was found “actually innocent” after advancements in medical science cast doubt on the original evidence used against him. Prosecutors ultimately declined to retry Roark, a decision that Roberson’s team hopes will set a precedent in their client’s favor. “Roark changed the legal landscape in Texas, and should mean relief for Robert,” Sween said, according to Houston Chronicle.
Roberson’s legal odyssey has spanned nearly two decades, with his defense team filing numerous petitions with state and federal courts as well as with the U.S. Supreme Court. The latest stay of execution was granted under Texas’ 2013 “junk science” law, which allows convictions to be challenged if the scientific evidence used is later deemed unreliable. As reported by AP, the court’s decision was influenced by new legal and scientific analyses indicating that Nikki’s death was likely caused by illness and accident—specifically pneumonia complications—rather than abuse.
Adding weight to the defense’s claims, a joint statement from ten independent pathologists declared the original autopsy report “not reliable.” Roberson’s lawyers also alleged judicial misconduct, asserting that the judge at his trial failed to disclose his involvement in authorizing the removal of Nikki from life support and circumventing Roberson’s parental rights. These revelations, highlighted in a recent NBC News podcast, have fueled calls for a thorough review of the case.
Roberson himself has steadfastly maintained his innocence. In an interview with AP last week from death row in Livingston, Texas, he stated, “I never shook her or hit her.” His defense has pointed to Nikki’s extensive medical history—she had been hospitalized more than 40 times in her short life and was suffering from multiple ailments at the time of her death. Two days before she died, Nikki had a fever of 104.5 degrees and was prescribed Phenergan, a medication now considered unsafe for children. Brian Wharton, the detective who originally investigated the case and arrested Roberson, has since come forward to express his belief in Roberson’s innocence, admitting he was unaware of Nikki’s medical history or Roberson’s autism diagnosis at the time of the investigation.
Despite mounting evidence casting doubt on the original conviction, the Texas Attorney General’s Office, led by Ken Paxton, has continued to pursue Roberson’s execution. Paxton’s office took over the prosecution from Anderson County earlier this year and, in a public statement last year, asserted that Roberson “murdered his daughter by beating her so brutally that she ultimately died.” Paxton’s position is echoed by some medical experts and members of Nikki’s family, who remain convinced that the child was a victim of abuse. In a September 2025 op-ed in The Dallas Morning News, three pediatricians, including two from Yale School of Medicine, stated, “We are convinced that Nikki was a victim of child abuse.”
Yet, the shaken baby syndrome diagnosis itself is now hotly contested. While some prosecutors and medical societies maintain its validity, a growing number of legal and medical professionals argue it has led to wrongful convictions across the country. The court’s split decision—six different opinions were issued by the judges—underscores the complexity and contentiousness of the issue.
Political and public interest in the case has been intense and wide-ranging. Roberson’s supporters span the ideological spectrum, from liberal and ultraconservative lawmakers to bestselling author John Grisham and Texas GOP megadonor Doug Deason. State Representative Jeff Leach, a Republican, praised the appeals court’s decision, saying, “Truth and justice finally win the day.” GOP Representative Brian Harrison echoed this sentiment, commending the judges for resisting “tremendous—and dishonest—political pressure to execute a potentially innocent person, who has never been given a fair trial.” Meanwhile, State Rep. Joe Moody, a Democrat, wrote on X, “If so many people are still wrestling with whether a crime even happened all these years later, then Robert shouldn’t have an execution date hanging over him in the first place. I believe in his innocence and applaud the court for taking a breath rather than taking a life.”
The next steps are far from straightforward. The Anderson County court cannot order a new trial on its own; it can only make a recommendation to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which will have the final say. For now, Roberson’s life has been spared, but the legal battle—and the broader fight over the use of dubious forensic science in criminal convictions—continues to rage. As new evidence and evolving scientific standards come to light, the case of Robert Roberson stands as a stark reminder of the high stakes and human costs at the intersection of law, medicine, and justice.
For Roberson and his supporters, Thursday’s decision offers a glimmer of hope—a chance, at least, to fight another day and perhaps to finally set the record straight.
