How disagreements a couple of Texas dying row inmate’s guilt turned a authorized battle between branches of presidency

Join The Temporary, The Texas Tribune’s each day e-newsletter that retains readers on top of things on essentially the most important Texas information.

The Supreme Court docket of Texas is weighing whether or not dying row inmate Robert Roberson — whose capital punishment was quickly halted final month — should testify earlier than a Texas Home committee earlier than the state can perform his execution.

The state’s highest civil court docket quickly paused Roberson’s execution final month after the Home Felony Jurisprudence Committee subpoenaed the person on Oct. 16, calling on the 57-year-old East Texan convicted of killing his 2-year-old daughter to testify about his prison case on the Texas Capitol 4 days after his scheduled execution.

That subpoena triggered an unprecedented query in regards to the state structure’s separation of powers — does the legislative members’ subpoena take priority over the chief department’s energy to implement a dying sentence, or is it the opposite method round?

Right here’s what it is advisable to know.

The background: Roberson was convicted of murdering his chronically-ill, 2-year-old daughter Nikki Curtis, who Roberson mentioned in 2002 had fallen up and about on the household house in Palestine earlier than he rushed her to the emergency room. A physician recognized Nikki with shaken child syndrome, which presumes abuse.

Roberson’s protection legal professional didn’t dispute the analysis throughout trial, solely arguing that Roberson didn’t intend to kill his daughter. However within the years because the trial, new scientific and medical proof has emerged exhibiting that the signs related to shaken child syndrome may additionally level to naturally occurring medical situations.

In a number of appeals over the previous 20 years, specialists raised proof that Nikki had undiagnosed pneumonia within the days earlier than her fall and that it progressed to the purpose of sepsis and suppressed her respiratory. She was additionally prescribed medicines now not given to infants.

Throughout a current legislative listening to, a juror in Roberson’s trial mentioned she wouldn’t have convicted Roberson had she been introduced with all of Nikki’s medical data, together with a CT scan and toxicology report. Gov. Greg Abbott and Lawyer Common Ken Paxton in the meantime keep that Roberson is responsible and that the case has already been correctly adjudicated.

Why the Texas Home committee sued: Committee members say they referred to as on Roberson to testify after listening to knowledgeable testimony about Texas’ 2013 junk science regulation, which permits courts to overturn a conviction when the scientific proof on the heart of the case has been discredited. Roberson has tried unsuccessfully to make use of the regulation to win a brand new trial.

After the Home committee issued the subpoena, they obtained a brief restraining order from a Travis County civil court docket to halt Roberson’s execution. Paxton then filed a petition within the Felony Court docket of Appeals on behalf of TDCJ, asking the state’s highest prison court docket to vacate that call as a result of the civil court docket didn’t have jurisdiction over the matter. The appeals court docket determined in Paxton’s favor.

However the Home committee responded by submitting an emergency movement with the Supreme Court docket of Texas, the state’s highest civil court docket. The Home argued that the Court docket of Felony Appeals didn’t have jurisdiction over the case as a result of a subpoena is a civil matter. The Supreme Court docket issued a brief injunction halting the execution and requested both sides to produce authorized briefs earlier than issuing a last judgment.

What the state says: Paxton asserts that the court docket’s order forcing the state to halt a lawfully imposed prison judgment “flouts the separation of powers.”

“The relief sought by the House Committee here usurps the Governor’s exclusive prerogative to grant one thirty-day reprieve in a capital case,” Paxton’s workplace writes in a authorized transient. “The Constitution’s specific grants of authority to the CCA and the Governor with respect to criminal judgments and temporary reprieves, respectively, thus necessarily trump any general subpoena power.”

What the Home committee says: Lawmakers, together with committee Chair Joe Moody, D-El Paso, and committee member Jeff Leach, R-Plano, argue that Paxton’s workplace has prevented TDCJ from complying with the subpoena and letting Roberson testify. They are saying issuing the subpoena didn’t assume the powers of one other department as a result of Roberson’s execution was solely quickly halted and lawmakers are constitutionally allowed to listen to testimony with a purpose to inform coverage making.

“Given the dispute over some facts in Roberson’s case, the Committee deemed it essential to hear from him personally to judge his credibility as a witness,” Home members argued in a authorized transient.

Broader affect: The state supreme court docket’s determination on this case is unlikely to immediately affect whether or not or not Roberson is awarded a brand new trial, as that call could be made by a prison court docket. But it surely may have repercussions for the Legislature’s subpoena energy. And testimony by a dying row inmate on the state Capitol about his case could be historic.

In January, three of the 5 Felony Court docket of Appeals judges who allowed Roberson’s execution to maneuver ahead will now not be on the court docket. If Roberson’s case one way or the other makes it again earlier than that court docket and any of the brand new judges take a unique stance, the votes may shift in Roberson’s favor.

The court docket’s determination can even reply a novel authorized query about whether or not a legislative subpoena or an execution order takes priority.

“I think that what we are seeing is checks and balances of different branches of government, which is what the constitutional vision was in the United States and was largely replicated in Texas,” mentioned Marc Levin Chief Coverage Counsel on the Council on Felony Justice. “It’s healthy for that to occur.”