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