1 / 57 ページ
IN THE
TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
ORIGINATING IN
3RD DISTRICT COURT, ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS
____________________________
) Trial Cause No. 26,162-A
EX PARTE )
ROBERT LESLIE ROBERSON III, ) Writ Cause No. WR-63,081-03
APPLICANT )
)
____________________________ )
SUGGESTION TO RECONSIDER ON COURT’S OWN INITIATIVE AND
MOTION TO HOLD FOR ADJUDICATION OF EX PARTE ROARK
______________________________________________
Gretchen S. Sween, Vanessa Potkin
Counsel of Record Pro Hac Vice Forthcoming
(State Bar No. 24041996) (NY Bar No: 3966413)
SWEEN LAW Jane Pucher
P.O. Box 5083 (NY Bar No: 4996898)
Austin, TX 78763-5083 Pro Hac Vice Forthcoming
gsweenlaw@gmail.com THE INNOCENCE PROJECT
(214) 557.5779 40 Worth Street, Suite 701
New York, New York 10013
vpotkin@innocenceproject.org
jpucher@innocenceproject.org
(212) 364-5359
Pro Bono Attorneys for Robert Leslie Roberson III
WR-63,081-03
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
Transmitted 4/24/2024 10:53 AM
Accepted 4/24/2024 12:11 PM
DEANA WILLIAMSON
CLERK
2 / 57 ページ
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Citation Guide ........................................................................................................... ii
Overview.................................................................................................................... 1
Basic Procedural and Factual Background ..............................................................14
I. Factual Background.......................................................................................14
II. Trial................................................................................................................20
III. Post-Conviction Proceedings.........................................................................26
A. Initial Appeals .....................................................................................26
B. The -03 Proceeding .............................................................................27
C. New Evidence Material to the Conviction..........................................28
D. Resolution of the -03 Proceeding........................................................36
Reasons to Reconsider.............................................................................................38
I. Reconsideration Is Warranted Because of Ex Parte Roark. ..........................38
II. Reconsideration Is Warranted Because Texas Law Now Recognizes
the Danger of Miscarriages of Justice When Caregivers Can be
Accused of Abuse based on the Hastily Formulated Opinions of
“Child Abuse Specialists.” ............................................................................40
III. Reconsideration Is Warranted Because the Habeas Court’s FFCL
Were Wholly Unreliable................................................................................43
Conclusion ...............................................................................................................50
Certificate of Compliance ........................................................................................52
Certificate of Service ...............................................................................................53
3 / 57 ページ
ii
CITATION GUIDE
The following abbreviations are used below in citing the record:
• “RR” refers to the Reporter’s Record from trial.
• “CR” refers to the Clerk’s Record.
• “EHRR” refers to the Reporter’s Record for the evidentiary hearing held in
this cause.
• “SX” refers to an exhibit admitted into evidence by the State at trial.
• “DX” refers to an exhibit admitted into evidence by the defense at trial.
• “APPX” refers to an exhibit admitted or offered into evidence during this
habeas proceeding by the Applicant.
• “RX” refers to an exhibit admitted or offered into evidence during this habeas
proceeding by the Respondent/State.
The number in front of the abbreviation refers to the volume number; the
number following the abbreviation refers to the page number or range.
4 / 57 ページ
1
OVERVIEW
Applicant Robert Leslie Roberson III, through counsel, respectfully suggests
that this Court reconsider, on its own initiative, its Order denying relief in Ex parte
Roberson, WR-63,081-03, 2023 WL 151908 (Tex. Crim. App. Jan. 11, 2023). See
TEX. R. APP. P. 79.2(d) (authorizing the Court to reconsider the denial of an 11.071
habeas corpus application “on its own initiative.”). This Court has recognized the
advisability of reconsidering the denial of habeas relief because of intervening
changes in the underlying facts or governing law. See, e.g., Ex parte Fierro, WR- 17,425-03 & WR-17,425-06, 2019 WL 6896993 (Tex. Crim. App. Dec. 18, 2019)
(unpub.) (reopening -03 writ on Court’s own initiative and granting habeas relief);
see also Ex parte Moreno, 245 S.W.3d 419, 422 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).
Before the State executes a man for a crime that did not occur, good cause
exists for the Court to take this initiative—especially considering Texas’s
commitment to elevating scientific accuracy over finality in the most serious
criminal cases. See TEX. CODE. CRIM. PROC. art. 11.073. Currently pending before
this Court is another Article 11.073 proceeding in which the State conceded the
falsity of identical expert testimony upon which the State relied to convict Mr.
Roberson. See Ex parte Roark, WR-56,380-03 (submitted Dec. 6, 2023). Ex parte
Roark was submitted, and thus this Court began considering the merits of that habeas