New Allegations Challenge Fairness in Robert Roberson’s Death Row Case

In the shadow of controversy, a significant development has emerged in the case of Robert Roberson, a man sentenced to death row for nearly two decades. His attorneys have brought forth new allegations questioning judicial bias that they argue compromised his right to a fair trial. This claim forms part of a broader campaign to re-evaluate the evidence and processes surrounding Roberson’s conviction.

Roberson was convicted in 2003 for the murder of his two-year-old daughter, Nikki, who tragically died just a year prior. The case has since become a focal point for debate over judicial conduct, forensic science standards, and the death penalty itself. At the heart of these recent allegations is the assertion that Roberson’s rights were violated when a judge authorized Nikki’s grandparents to decide on life support removal before any charges against Roberson had been filed.

This controversial decision was brought to light only after it was mentioned in an interview with Larry Bowman, Nikki’s grandfather, on “The Last Appeal” podcast. During this discussion, Bowman revealed that Judge Bascom Bentley, who later died in 2017, allegedly bypassed Roberson’s legal rights as the child’s sole managing conservator.

Roberson’s attorneys have filed a judicial misconduct claim, alleging that Bentley’s decision was not only a breach of protocol but also indicative of bias. They argue this act alone demonstrates prejudgment and misconduct severe enough to warrant a retrial.

Adding complexity to the case, there is renewed scrutiny on the forensic evidence used in Roberson’s conviction. Critics point out that an autopsy conducted in 2002 concluded Nikki died from blunt force trauma consistent with shaken baby syndrome—a diagnosis now challenged by updated scientific consensus. This has spurred calls for reevaluation, supported by Crime Stoppers of Houston and other advocacy groups.

Despite these calls, the Texas Attorney General supports Roberson’s conviction. Interestingly, Brian Wharton, the lead detective at the time, has expressed doubts about Roberson’s guilt. This case also intersects with broader legislative concerns in Texas regarding forensic science laws intended to prevent convictions based on outdated or flawed evidence—a law that critics argue failed in Roberson’s instance.

As the legal battle continues, Roberson’s execution date looms ominously close. The complexity and gravity of these new allegations underscore ongoing debates about justice, fairness, and the irreversible nature of capital punishment.

The case has captured national attention, raising fundamental questions about due process and the integrity of judicial proceedings in death penalty cases.

For more detailed coverage on this unfolding story, visit KPRC Click2Houston (opens in a new tab).