(Texas Tribune) – The Texas Supreme Court on Friday lifted its temporary block on the execution of Robert Roberson, saying lawsuits by Texas lawmakers cannot be used to stop scheduled executions of death row inmates. But the ruling came after Roberson’s execution, scheduled for Oct. 17, was delayed so the state’s highest civil court could rule on a dispute over the separation of powers between the branches of state government. Friday’s decision did not wade into Roberson’s guilt or innocence.

The court earlier paused Roberson’s execution after the House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee subpoenaed the death row inmate and called on the 57-year-old East Texan convicted of killing his 2-year-old daughter to testify about his criminal case at the Texas Capitol for four days. after his scheduled execution.

“We conclude that, under these circumstances, the committee’s authority to compel testimony does not include the authority to override the scheduled judicial process leading to an execution,” Friday’s court order said.

That House committee hearing sparked an unprecedented question about the state constitution’s separation of powers — do lawmakers’ hearings take precedence over the executive branch’s ability to carry out a death sentence, or is it the other way around?

“By requiring his testimony on a date after the scheduled execution, the lawsuit created a conflict involving all three branches of government,” the judge wrote Friday.

Roberson’s death sentence remains intact, but a new execution must be scheduled. The Supreme Court ruling noted that there is time for Roberson’s testimony to be heard by the committee.

“If the committee still wishes to obtain his testimony, we assume that the (Texas Department of Criminal Justice) Division can reasonably accommodate a new subpoena,” the court order said. “So long as a subpoena is issued in a manner that does not unavoidably block a scheduled execution, nothing in our holding precludes the Committee from pursuing legal aid in the ordinary way to compel the testimony of a witness.”

Here’s what you need to know.

The background: Roberson was convicted of murdering his chronically ill, 2-year-old daughter Nikki Curtis, who Roberson said in 2002 had fallen off the bed at the family’s home in Palestine before rushing her to the emergency room. A doctor diagnosed Nikki with shaken baby syndromewhich presupposes abuse.

Roberson’s defense attorney did not challenge the diagnosis during the trial, arguing only that Roberson did not intend to kill his daughter. But in the years following the trial, new scientific and medical evidence have emerged showing that the symptoms associated with shaken baby syndrome may also point to naturally occurring medical conditions.

In several appeals over the past two decades, experts have presented evidence that Nikki had undiagnosed pneumonia in the days before her fall and that it progressed to the point of sepsis and suppressed her breathing. She was also given medications that were no longer given to infants.

During a legislative hearing in October 2024, a juror in Roberson’s trial said she would not have convicted Roberson if she had obtained all of Nikki’s medical records, including a CT scan and toxicology report. Governor Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton, meanwhile claim that Roberson is guilty and that the case has already been properly settled.

Why the Texas House committee sued: Committee members say they urged Roberson to testify after hearing expert testimony about Texas’ 2013 junk science law, which allows courts to overturn a conviction when the scientific evidence at the center of the case has been discredited. Roberson has tried unsuccessfully to use the law to win a new trial.

After the House committee issued the subpoena, they obtained a temporary restraining order from a Travis County civil court to stop Roberson’s execution. Paxton then filed a petition with the Criminal Court of Appeals on behalf of the TDCJ, asking the state’s highest criminal court to overturn that decision because the civil court did not have jurisdiction over the case. The appeals court ruled in Paxton’s favor.

But the House committee responded by filing an emergency declaration with the Texas Supreme Court, the state’s highest civil court. The House argued that the Court of Criminal Appeals did not have jurisdiction over the case because a subpoena is a civil matter. The Supreme Court issued a temporary injunction halting the execution and asked each side to provide legal documents before issuing a final ruling.

What the state claimed: Paxton successfully argued that the court’s decision forcing the state to halt a legally enforced criminal conviction “contempts the separation of powers.”

“The relief sought by the House committee here usurps the governor’s exclusive prerogative to grant a thirty-day stay in a capital case,” Paxton’s office wrote in a legal brief. “The Constitution’s specific grants of authority to the CCA and the Governor with respect to criminal convictions and temporary stays, respectively, thereby necessarily trump any general subpoena powers.”

What the House Committee argued: Lawmakers, including Committee Chairman Joe Moody, D-El Paso, and Committee Member Jeff Leach, R-Plano, argued that Paxton’s office prevented the TDCJ from complying with the subpoena and blocked him from testifying against Roberson. They said issuing the subpoena did not usurp another branch’s authority because Roberson’s execution was only temporarily halted and lawmakers are constitutionally allowed to hear testimony to inform decision-making.

“Given the dispute over certain facts in Roberson’s case, the committee felt it was important to hear from him in person to assess his credibility as a witness,” House members argued in a legal brief.

Wider effect: The state Supreme Court’s decision in this case does not directly affect whether or not Roberson is granted a new trial, as that decision would be made by a criminal court. But it has repercussions for the legislative assembly’s subpoena power. And testimony from a death row inmate at the state Capitol about his case would be historic.

In January 2025, three of the five appeals court judges who allowed Roberson’s execution to go forward will no longer be on the court. If Roberson’s case somehow comes back to that court and one of the new justices takes a different position, the votes could shift in Roberson’s favor.

The court’s decision answered a new legal question about whether a legislative subpoena or an executive order takes precedence.

“I think what we’re seeing are checks and balances between different branches of government, which is what the constitutional vision was in the United States and was largely replicated in Texas,” said Marc Levin, chief policy adviser at the Council on Criminal Justice. “It’s healthy for that to happen.”

Copyright 2024 The Texas Tribune. All rights reserved.