The State of Texas has executed 595 people since 1982—far more than any other state in the nation. Texas also leads the country in the probability that it has executed ten innocent men since 1989. During the same period, there have been 499 exonerations of innocent persons who were wrongfully convicted and sentenced to prison in Texas—second in the nation, behind only Illinois. Numerous studies and reports have cited a list of reasons why Texas is the execution capital of the U.S., why it does not mind putting innocent people to death, and why it is not truly embarrassed by its staggering rate of exonerations:
- Official Misconduct: prosecutorial suppression of exculpatory or mitigating evidence; use of perjured testimony; fabricated evidence; repeated use of unreliable jailhouse informants; and criminal or official misconduct by law enforcement.
- Racial Bias: death penalty disproportionately given to people of color; deliberate exclusion of people of color in jury service by prosecution; and greater likelihood of people of color receiving the death penalty and being executed when the victim of the crime is white.
- Resistance to New Evidence: Despite having a law that allows for challenges to what is known as “junk science” (flawed forensic evidence), Article 11.073 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, not a single person on death row has successfully used the law.
- Absence of Clemency: The Texas Board of Pardons, since 1982, has recommended clemency in only five death penalty cases, and only three death row inmates have had death sentences commuted to life in prison.
- Future Dangerousness: Texas jurors in a death penalty case must decide “whether there is a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society”—or what is known as “future dangerousness.” Prosecutors have routinely used experts, known as “Doctor Deaths,” in exchange for substantial fees to testify about a defendant’s future propensity for committing violent acts—and these Doctor Deaths would, and still do, routinely tell jurors without any reliable evidence that the defendant, “no matter where he is, he will kill again.”
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who has faced criminal felony charges and has been held civilly liable in a whistleblower lawsuit, has taken it upon himself to do everything in his power, at the behest of Anderson County District Attorney Allyson Mitchell, to put another innocent death row inmate to death.
As reported by The Texas Tribune on June 17, 2025, Robert Roberson was convicted and sentenced to death in Anderson County in connection with the death of his 2-year-old daughter, Nikki. The core evidence against Roberson was “shaken baby syndrome,” presented through questionable expert witness testimony. For more than two decades, Roberson and his legal team have argued to the courts, the state legislature, and the general public that Nikki’s death was caused by medications that are no longer prescribed for children.
Roberson’s claims of innocence have garnered national and international media attention, as well as substantial bipartisan support from a significant number of Texas lawmakers.
Last October, as Roberson approached an execution date, his case triggered a separation-of-powers conflict between the legislative and executive branches of government. The conflict—set in motion by some lawmakers who either believed in his innocence or didn’t think the courts had properly reviewed the new scientific evidence in the case supporting Roberson’s claim of innocence—arose when a legislative subpoena was issued to have the death row inmate testify before a committee several days after his scheduled execution.
That extraordinary legislative maneuver was designed to necessitate a stay of execution and force a more comprehensive judicial review of Roberson’s new evidence of innocence. The conflict was resolved when the Texas Supreme Court intervened and paused the pending execution date. A new appeal was filed by Roberson’s defense attorney, Gretchen Sween.
Apparently both frustrated and infuriated by the delay (and potential success) of the new appeal, DA Mitchell recently turned to her “law-and-order” pal Paxton, who is more than willing—as he has been in the past—to suck up to President Trump’s recent demand that states ramp up the pace of their executions, to speed up the timeline for Roberson’s execution. Paxton, who is gearing up to oust Sen. John Cornyn from the U.S. Senate next year, moved an Anderson County judge on June 17, 2025, to set a new execution date even though Roberson’s latest appeal is still pending in the courts. State law sets a 90-day time frame for the judge to set an execution date.
The Tribune quoted from a statement given by Roberson’s attorney:
“I have never heard of the AG taking over a state court representation after the local DA’s office has been handling the case for years. The AG’s office has not been involved in this case and plainly does not know the case in light of all of the shocking misrepresentations that were made in filings and press releases by that office when state lawmakers sought to use their subpoena power to hear from Robert directly.”
The attorney general does not enjoy prosecutorial power in Texas unless requested to do so by the local district attorney, as Mitchell did in this case. Both Paxton and Mitchell understand the “law-and-order” value in the Roberson case.
We suspect that their collusion plan is for Paxton to use the Roberson case for the publicity value it will give him in his race against Sen. Cornyn and, in exchange, the attorney general will endorse Mitchell in a race to replace him as attorney general—a typical corrupt quid pro quo deal in Texas politics, especially in a death penalty case.
This deal is consistent with Paxton’s efforts last year to see Roberson put to death after the legislative subpoena was issued. In what The Tribune described as a “graphic press release,” Paxton railed about Roberson’s guilt, saying the subpoena was nothing more than an “eleventh-hour, one-sided, extrajudicial stunt that attempt[s] to obscure the facts and rewrite [Roberson’s] past.”
In response to Paxton’s action, attorney Sween had this to say:
“Robert Roberson is innocent. The AG’s unjustified rush to seek an execution date while that new evidence of innocence is before the court is outrageous.”
We agree.
But what can you expect from an attorney general who has made violating the rule of law a personal fetish and who is following the path of his criminal mentor, Donald J. Trump, in trying to manipulate as much law-and-order media attention as he can get on the back of an innocent condemned man?
