When the U.S. Supreme Court refused to halt the execution of Texas death row inmate Robert Roberson III, Thursday night’s decision included sharp words from Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
RELATED: ‘They did the right thing’: Officials and public reaction to halting Robert Roberson’s execution
This wasn’t the first time Mayor Soto has criticized the state of Texas and the way the courts handle death penalty cases.
Roberson was sentenced to death in 2003 after his daughter died from what medical experts thought was shaken baby syndrome. His defense team, backed by a bipartisan group of state lawmakers, urged a delay in his execution, arguing that Roberson’s conviction was based on the debunked theory of shaken baby syndrome and that he was probably innocent. I applied pressure.
When the Supreme Court denied Roberson’s request for a stay of execution, Sotomayor cited precedent that says judges “do not have the authority to tell state courts how to write their opinions.”
“Nevertheless, it is notable that the (Texas Court of Criminal Appeals) decision in this case does not address the entirety of the evidence of Roberson’s actual innocence,” she wrote.
RELATED: Texas High Court blocks Robert Roberson’s execution following new legal action by lawmakers
Sotomayor also criticized the Texas Court of Appeals for inconsistent rulings in shaken baby syndrome cases.
“TCCA this week retrialed Andrew Wayne Rourke, a non-equity defendant who was convicted of child abuse based on the same expert witness’ Shaken Baby Syndrome testimony that led to Roberson’s conviction.” I admitted it,” she said. I wrote. “When Roberson sought a stay of execution based on the allegations that the TCCA had credited to Rourke, the TCCA promptly denied relief.”
Sotomayor said that after Rourke’s decision, Roberson filed his fourth post-conviction appeal, detailing that “Rourke’s testimony regarding shaken baby syndrome was almost indistinguishable from his testimony in the case.” “It was shown,” he wrote.
Still, the Court of Criminal Appeals denied relief in a 5-4 vote, she wrote.
RELATED: How to watch Monday’s hearing for death row inmate Robert Roberson at the Texas State Capitol
Mr. Sotomayor acknowledged that Mr. Roberson’s request for a stay lacked “a discernible federal argument” for the court to respond to, but added, There are few cases in which such relief is more urgently sought than in the serious cases presented.” ”
“Since this court cannot act without a federal request and the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles has rejected a recommendation for clemency, only one remedy remains: Roberson’s death penalty.” “The granting of a suspended sentence for 30 days,” she said.
Gov. Greg Abbott could give Mr. Roberson a 30-day reprieve, and Texas Republican lawmakers are urging him to do so.
“Under these circumstances, a stay allowing investigation of Mr. Roberson’s credible and actual claim of innocence is essential, but this court cannot grant it,” Sotomayor said. “In other words, there is only one path left for relief: administrative suspension.”
She added: “This may prevent the occurrence of miscarriages of justice in which men are executed who have produced credible evidence of their actual innocence.”
Sotomayor disagrees with how Texas handles other death row cases.
In April, after the Supreme Court rejected Dillion Compton’s appeal, Sotomayor pointed to arguments that Texas prosecutors unfairly excluded women from potential jurors because of their gender.
“It is unconstitutional to beat even one potential juror for discriminatory reasons,” she wrote.
In 2022, when the Supreme Court refused to hear the case of Black death row inmate Andre Thomas, who claimed he was denied a fair trial because three jurors opposed interracial marriage, Sotomayor said: I wrote it like this. Their deliberations and decisions may be contaminated by potential racial biases that may influence their decisions. ”
In 2018, Sotomayor criticized the court for refusing to intervene in Carlos Trevino’s case, saying his trial attorneys would investigate and provide mitigating evidence of brain damage and developmental delays caused by prenatal alcohol exposure. He claimed that he had not provided.
Sotomayor said the ruling was “indefensible” and that Trevino’s “allegations of ineffective assistance from trial counsel were not adequately considered and that there were no new claims that competent counsel would have discovered.” “There was no jury to fairly evaluate the mitigating evidence,” and he was sentenced to death.
