1 / 159 ページ

i

IN THE

TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AND

3RD DISTRICT COURT, ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

____________________________

) Trial Cause No. 26,162

EX PARTE )

ROBERT LESLIE ROBERSON III, ) Writ Cause No. WR-63,081-__

APPLICANT )

)

____________________________ )

SUBSEQUENT APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS UNDER ARTICLES 11.071 AND 11.073

Execution Date: October 17, 2024

Vanessa Potkin Gretchen S. Sween

NY Bar No: 3966413 Counsel of Record

Pro Hac Vice pending SBOT 24041996

Jane Pucher P.O. Box 5083

NY Bar No: 4996898 Austin, Texas 78763-5083

Pro Hac Vice pending (214) 557.5779

THE INNOCENCE PROJECT gsweenlaw@gmail.com

40 Worth Street, Suite 701

New York, New York 10013 Donald P. Salzman

(212) 364-5359 NY Bar No. 2045250

vpotkin@innocenceproject.org MD Bar No. 16501

jpucher@innocenceproject.org DC Bar No. 479775

Pro Hac Vice pending

SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER &

FLOM LLP

1440 New York Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20005

(202) 371-7983

donald.salzman@skadden.com

Pro Bono Attorneys for Robert Leslie Roberson III

2 / 159 ページ

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents...................................................................................................... ii

Table of Authorities.................................................................................................. vi

Record Citation Key...............................................................................................xvv

Introduction................................................................................................................ 1

Section 5(a) Is Satisfied ...........................................................................................17

A. Legal Standard...............................................................................................17

B. New Case-Specific Evidence Unavailable Before June 2016.......................17

Factual Background .................................................................................................20

A. Nikki’s Medical History ................................................................................20

B. Nikki’s Final Collapse ...................................................................................22

C. Robert’s Background .....................................................................................26

D. The Truncated Investigation ..........................................................................27

E. The Evolution of SBS/AHT Theory and the Current Consensus that

Discredits its Core Principles................................................................................32

1. Overview........................................................................................................32

2. Origins of the SBS/AHT Hypothesis.............................................................34

3. All Tenets of the SBS Hypothesis Used to Convict Robert Have Been

Discredited ............................................................................................................37

a. Today the medical consensus recognizes that many phenomena can

cause the triad, and a differential diagnosis is

essential........................................................................38

b. Today it is widely recognized that violent shaking would cause neck

injuries, and no study has shown that shaking can cause the

triad............................................................................40

c. Today documented cases of short falls, corroborated by video

recordings, have conclusively shown that short falls with head impact

can cause serious, even fatal, injuries and children can experience a

3 / 159 ページ

iii

lucid interval of hours or days before subdural bleeding causes

collapse........................................................................43

d. Recent new science published in the past two years shows

SBS/AHT has been considerably over-diagnosed.......................45

Substantive Procedural History................................................................................48

A. Robert’s Trial .................................................................................................48

B. Post-Trial Proceedings...................................................................................54

C. The -03 Proceeding........................................................................................55

New Previously Unavailable Evidence Establishes Nikki Died of Natural and

Accidental Causes....................................................................................................59

A. New Evidence Shows Nikki’s Death Was Not Caused by Inflicted Head

Trauma—Imaging of Nikki’s Head Shows a Single Minor Impact Site..............59

B. New Evidence Interpreting Overlooked Chest X-Rays Correlate with the

Finding That Nikki’s Lungs Were Diseased .........................................................62

C. New Evidence Proves Nikki Died of a Severe Double Pneumonia That

Progressed to the Point of Sepsis..........................................................................63

D. New Evidence Shows Nikki’s Respiratory Distress Was Exacerbated by

Excessive Doses of Inappropriate Prescription Medications ...............................69

E. Nikki’s Brain Condition Was Not Caused by Trauma...................................75

F. SBS/AHT Was the Causation Theory That Permitted the State to Allege That

a Crime Had Occurred; No Other Credible Evidence Supported the Conviction78

Claims ......................................................................................................................82

A. Claim I: New Evidence Establishes That the Conviction Was Obtained

Using Material, False Testimony ..........................................................................82

1. Overview ....................................................................................................82

2. Legal Standard............................................................................................84

3. The State Relied on False Testimony at Trial ............................................84

a. The State relied on false testimony regarding a version of SBS/AHT

entirely disavowed by science...............................................85

b. The State relied on false testimony that Robert’s demeanor suggested

guilt............................................................................88

4 / 159 ページ

iv

c. The State relied on false, highly prejudicial testimony about sexual

abuse.........................................................................97

4. The False Testimony Was Material..........................................................103

B. Claim II: New Medical and Scientific Evidence Establishes a Right to Relief

under Article 11.073............................................................................................106

1. Overview ..................................................................................................106

2. Legal Standard..........................................................................................107

3. The SBS Cause-of-Death Hypothesis Was Patently Material to the

Conviction; Robert Would Not Have Been Convicted If the New Scientific

Evidence Had Been Presented to His Jury ......................................................110

C. Claim III: Robert’s Right to Due Process Is Violated by a Conviction Based

on Subsequently Discredited Medical Opinions and Considering the

Overwhelming New Evidence of Innocence ......................................................118

1. Legal Standard..........................................................................................119

2. The Due Process Deprivation Merits Relief............................................119

D. Claim IV: Robert’s Sixth Amendment Autonomy-Right Was Violated By

Trial Counsel Overriding His Explicit Objective To Maintain His Innocence ..122

1. Factual Basis ............................................................................................122

a. Robert consistently maintained his innocence......... .............122

b. Trial counsel overrode Robert’s desire to maintain his innocence,

conceding the SBS hypothesis without his consent.....................125

c. For years afterwards, Robert continued to ask counsel to pursue his

Actual Innocence............................................................126

2. McCoy v. Louisiana Is New Law Entitling Robert to Relief...................128

E. Claim V: New Medical And Scientific Evidence Establishes Robert’s Actual

Innocence ............................................................................................................132

1. Overview ..................................................................................................132

2. Legal Standard..........................................................................................135

3. An Actual Innocence Finding Is Warranted .............................................137

Conclusion .............................................................................................................141