Texas Supreme Court weighs in on argument over death row inmate’s delayed execution date

ANDERSON COUNTY, Texas – As a legal chess match continues over a death row inmate’s life, the Texas Supreme Court has weighed in, saying a legislative committee that delayed Robert Roberson’s execution date does have the power to stop a scheduled sentence but should have done so sooner.

EXPLAINER: What put a Texas death row inmate’s case back in the spotlight?

In a 31-page document, the Supreme Court of Texas opined on the Robert Roberson case noting how the state has been confronted by a separation of powers issue by failing to resolve this in a timely manner.

“We conclude that under these circumstances the committee’s authority to compel testimony does not include the power to override the scheduled legal process leading to an execution,” the document reads. “We do not repudiate legislative investigatory power, but any testimony relevant to a legislative task here could have been obtained long before the death warrant was issued—or even afterward, but before the execution.”

Key Takeaways:

• Separation of Powers is Paramount The court concluded that no single branch of government can exercise authority in a way that negates the constitutional powers of another branch. Legislative subpoenas must respect the judiciary’s role in enforcing death warrants and the executive branch’s clemency powers.
• Legislative Subpoena vs. Execution Timeline The legislature’s ability to compel testimony does not extend to disrupting a long-planned execution when testimony could have been sought earlier. In this case, the committee failed to act within an appropriate timeline.
• Judicial and Executive Roles in Capital Punishment The judiciary’s issuance of a death warrant and the executive branch’s decision not to grant clemency represent final determinations. These cannot be subordinated to a legislative committee’s investigatory demands.
• Judicial Authority and Civil Law Scope The court reaffirmed its jurisdiction to resolve civil disputes arising from governmental conflicts, holding that the case was a separation-of-powers matter, not a criminal law issue.
• Future Implications for Legislative Subpoenas The ruling does not undermine legislative investigatory powers except in the narrow instance when a subpoena was issued the night before a scheduled execution. The legislature is urged to act proactively in similar situations to avoid last-minute conflicts.

MORE: Texas Supreme Court removes temporary block to Robert Roberson’s execution

Roberson made headlines after he was convicted in 2003 murdering his 2-year-old daughter Nikki Curtis in Palestine, Texas — located in East Texas’ Anderson County. When Roberson’s execution was abruptly halted, it was due to a subpoena from the Texas House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee, ordering him to testify about a law committee members said should have aided him in the appeal of his death sentence. The committee has been investigating whether Texas’s so-called “junk science” law is working as intended.

RELATED: Questions about validity of shaken baby syndrome not enough to give Texas death row inmate new trial, court rules

In Roberson’s case, his attorneys argued new and evolved scientific evidence indicates his daughter did not die from “shaken baby syndrome,” and Texas’s “junk science” law should have led to a new trial. Lawmakers that helped pause his death sentence claim they initially worked out a deal to have Roberson testify in-person before the Criminal Jurisprudence Committee in Austin.

However, committee members said the AG’s Office blocked in-person testimony and would only allow Roberson to testify remotely. Committee members and Roberson’s attorney argued remote testimony would not be effective because he is on the autism spectrum and has communication difficulties.

SUGGESTED: Will Robert Roberson have a chance to testify? Death row inmate’s next moves lie with Texas Supreme Court

Even after the Texas Supreme Court’s ruling, it is not clear how or when committee members will obtain his testimony. It is also not yet known whether Anderson County prosecutors will seek a new death date or wait until Roberson provides testimony to the committee.

Texas law states execution dates cannot be scheduled sooner than 90 days from the day a death warrant is issued.

The AG’s Office and Governor Greg Abbott, also argued the subpoena violated the separation of powers clause in the Texas constitution because it prevented Roberson’s execution from being carried out.

“We therefore hold that the Texas Constitution’s separation-of-powers provision and our general separation-of-powers jurisprudence do not permit judicial enforcement of a legislative subpoena that would require canceling a long-scheduled execution,” the Supreme Court added. “In our view, this holding accommodates the interests of all branches of the government. Precisely because every execution must be set so far in advance—and because no execution occurs without massive examination and scrutiny—legislative committees are always on notice that information they may wish to obtain must be sought in advance.”

In a post on X, State Rep. Jeff Leach wrote: “By virtue of Justice Young’s well-reasoned and well-written opinion, The Texas Supreme Court made three things very clear: 1) our legislative subpoena is valid, 2) Our House Committee is Constitutionally entitled to obtain Mr. Roberson’s testimony, 3) the Executive branch must accommodate and assist us in doing so.

Additionally, Roberson’s attorney Gretchen Sween shared the following statement with KPRC 2:

“We are grateful that the validity of the Committee’s right to obtain Mr. Roberson’s testimony was recognized today by the Texas Supreme Court as well as an expectation that the Executive Branch work cooperatively to obtain that testimony. The ancillary benefit to Mr. Roberson of staying his execution hopefully gives time for those with power to address a grave wrong to see what is apparent to anyone who gives the medical evidence fair consideration: his daughter Nikki’s death was a tragedy not a crime; Robert is innocent. Given the overwhelming new evidence of innocence, we ask the State of Texas to refrain from setting a new execution date.

“The lead detective, Brian Wharton, is now convinced that Robert was hastily and wrongly judged as guilty when he was an autistic father who was incapable of explaining his daughter’s complex medical condition that it took highly trained medical specialists years to figure out. Mr. Wharton was in charge of investigating Nikki’s death who deferred to a doctor’s shaken baby hypothesis, made even before her autopsy was performed, and ordered that Mr. Roberson be arrested; he testified for the prosecution, and now believes Mr. Roberson is innocent. No Texan wants an innocent man executed.”