Latest news with #TexasSupremeCourt
USA Today
6 days ago
- USA Today
'Texans should be outraged': Execution back on for inmate who has strong innocence claims
Last year with hours left to live, Robert Roberson's life was spared following a furious effort by a bipartisan group of Texas lawmakers − a development rarely seen in the hardliner state A Texas judge has rescheduled the execution of a death row inmate who won a rare stay of execution last year as prison officials were poised to administer his lethal injection. Judge Austin Reeve Jackson on Wednesday set Robert Roberson's execution for Oct. 16, almost exactly a year after the Texas Supreme Court granted him a stay on his last execution day, Oct. 17, 2024. Roberson, 58, is imprisoned in the 2002 death of his 2-year-old daughter, Nikki, despite strong evidence that suggests he is innocent. Roberson was convicted based on shaken baby syndrome, which has since been largely debunked. Last year with hours left to live, Roberson's life was spared following a furious effort by a bipartisan group of Texas lawmakers − a development rarely seen in the nation's most prolific death penalty state. The Texas Supreme Court intervened even as the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles declined to recommend clemency for Roberson and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to stop it. Judge Reeve has rescheduled the execution at the request of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton even though the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is "currently considering new evidence further proving" Roberson's innocence, said his defense attorney, Gretchen Sween. 'Texans should be outraged that the court has scheduled an execution date for a demonstrably innocent man," Sween said in a statement. "Everyone who has taken the time to look at the evidence of Robert Roberson's innocence − including the lead detective, one of the jurors, a range of highly qualified experts, and a bipartisan group of Texas lawmakers − has reached the same conclusion: Nikki's death was a terrible tragedy. Robert did not kill her. There was no crime." The Attorney General's Office didn't immediately respond to USA TODAY's request for comment Wednesday. Here's what you need to know about the case. Detective who pursued Robert Roberson: 'I was wrong' Roberson was convicted of killing his daughter in their home in the East Texas city of Palestine in 2002. Roberson reported hearing Nikki cry and finding that she had fallen out of bed. After soothing her, he said, they both went back to sleep. Later, when Roberson woke again, he found Nikki wasn't breathing, and her lips had turned blue. At the emergency room, doctors observed symptoms consistent with brain death and she was pronounced dead the next day. Doctors and investigators at the time jumped to the conclusion that Nikki died of shaken baby syndrome, but the toddler had pneumonia in both lungs, pre-existing conditions for which she was prescribed opioids now banned for children, and undiagnosed sepsis. Shaken baby syndrome has been largely debunked as junk science, and the lead investigator in Roberson's case told USA TODAY's The Excerpt podcast that he botched the investigation. "Robert is a completely innocent man and we got it completely wrong, because we were looking for the wrong things," Brian Wharton said, adding that his confirmation bias and a number of misunderstandings wrongly pointed him to Roberson's guilt. "I was wrong. I didn't see Robert. I did not hear Robert," Wharton said. "I can tell you now, he is a good man. He is a kind man. He is a gracious man. And he did not do what the state of Texas and I have accused him of." What led to Robert Roberson's previous execution stay? Five Republican and four Democratic lawmakers on the Texas House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence issued a subpoena for Roberson shortly before his execution last year in an extraordinary effort to stop it. Texas Reps. Joe Moody, a Democrat, and Jeff Leach, a Republican, led the charge for Roberson's reprieve and issued a statement after his life was spared. "For over 20 years, Robert Roberson has spent 23.5 hours of every single day in solitary confinement in a cell no bigger than the closets of most Texans, longing and striving to be heard," they said. "And while some courthouses may have failed him, the Texas House has not." The move came after a failed effort by a bipartisan group of 84 Texas lawmakers who urged the state's Board of Pardons and Paroles to recommend clemency for Roberson "out of grave concern that Texas may put him to death for a crime that did not occur.' The clemency board denied their request. About three dozen scientific and medical experts wrote to the clemency board explaining that had Nikki died today, "no doctor would consider Shaken Baby Syndrome" as the cause because the condition "is now considered a diagnosis of exclusion." "Nikki's pneumonia, the extreme levels of dangerous medications found in her system during her autopsy, and her fall from the bed explain why Nikki died," the experts wrote. Also fighting for Roberson's salvation: groups representing parental rights, autism advocates, faith leaders and anti-death penalty groups including the Innocence Project, and bestselling author John Grisham, who called Nikki's death "a tragedy, not a crime," in a column for the Palestine Herald-Press. What happens now? Roberson's attorney told USA TODAY that she will again seek a stay of Roberson's execution "so all of the evidence that proves he is innocent can be reviewed by the courts without the pressure of a looming execution date.' Roberson will have many chances for courts, the state's clemency board and government officials to stop his execution again.
GMA Network
6 days ago
- Politics
- GMA Network
October execution date set for Texas man in 'shaken baby' case
HOUSTON, Texas - A Texas judge on Wednesday set a new execution date for an autistic man convicted in a problematic "shaken baby" case. Judge Austin Reeve Jackson set October 16 as the date for Robert Roberson to be executed by lethal injection for the 2002 death of his two-year-old daughter, Nikki. Roberson, 58, had been scheduled to die on October 17 of last year at the state penitentiary in Huntsville but his execution was put on hold after he was subpoenaed to testify before a Texas House of Representatives committee. The Texas Supreme Court temporarily stayed his execution in response to the extraordinary subpoena from state lawmakers looking into Roberson's controversial conviction and the use of "junk science" in criminal prosecutions. A bipartisan group of 86 Texas lawmakers had urged clemency for Roberson, citing "voluminous new scientific evidence" that cast doubt on his guilt. Roberson would be the first person executed in the United States based on a diagnosis of shaken baby syndrome, according to his lawyers. His case has drawn the attention of not only Texas lawmakers but also best-selling American novelist John Grisham, medical experts and the Innocence Project, which works to reverse wrongful convictions. Also among his supporters is the man who put him behind bars -- Brian Wharton, the former chief detective in the town of Palestine -- who has said "knowing everything that I know now, I am firmly convinced that Robert is an innocent man." Gretchen Sween, one of Roberson's attorneys, criticized the decision to set an execution date while the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is considering new evidence in the case. "Texans should be outraged that the court has scheduled an execution date for a demonstrably innocent man," Sween said in a statement. "Everyone who has taken the time to look at the evidence of Robert Roberson's innocence... has reached the same conclusion: Nikki's death was a terrible tragedy. "Robert did not kill her. There was no crime." Roberson has always maintained his innocence and his lawyers said his chronically ill daughter died of natural and accidental causes, not abuse. The diagnosis of shaken baby syndrome, made at the hospital where Roberson's daughter died, was erroneous, they said, and the cause of death was pneumonia, aggravated by doctors prescribing improper medication. Roberson's autism spectrum disorder, which was not diagnosed until 2018, also contributed to his arrest and conviction, according to his lawyers. There have been 26 executions in the United States this year, including four in Texas. — Agence France-Presse
Time of India
09-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Texas may cut ties with ABA, But at what cost to future lawyers?
For decades, a law degree from a Texas institution carried with it a silent promise, that its holder could walk into a courtroom not just in Dallas or Houston, but in any state across the country. That promise, anchored by American Bar Association (ABA) accreditation, now stands on shaky ground. The Texas Supreme Court is reconsidering a rule that, since 1983, has required aspiring attorneys to graduate from an ABA-accredited law school in order to take the state's bar exam. What began as a procedural review has evolved into a high-stakes debate over legal standards, political ideology, and the portability of professional degrees in a fractured nation. At the heart of the issue lies a fundamental question: Should one state's skepticism of a national institution be allowed to redraw the career trajectories of thousands of future lawyers? A rule under siege The review was initiated by the Texas Supreme Court in April, weeks after Florida launched a similar move questioning ABA authority. The Florida Supreme Court, made up entirely of Republican appointees, pointed to concerns over the ABA's now-paused diversity mandate and its 'active political engagement' as reasons to reconsider the group's role in legal education. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Get ₹2Cr life cover@ ₹700 p.m. ICICI Pru Life Insurance Plan Get Quote Undo Texas, where all elected judges are Republican, has signaled a similar wariness. The court has yet to announce any final decision or timeline, but its actions have already sparked a sense of unease across law schools statewide. The ABA, the nation's oldest and most influential legal accreditor, has faced increasing pushback in recent years, particularly from conservative leadership. Once regarded as a politically neutral authority, it is now often seen by its critics as straying into ideological territory. That shift has led the federal government to revoke the ABA's power to vet judicial nominees and has barred federal attorneys from participating in ABA events. Yet for law students and legal educators, this fight isn't about partisanship; it's about practical consequences. Texas deans push back In a united front, the deans of eight of Texas' ten ABA-accredited law schools sent a letter to the state's highest court urging it to maintain the requirement. They argue that the ABA's accreditation process, though rigorous, offers consistency, transparency, and, most importantly, national mobility. According to the National Association for Law Placement, roughly 12% of Texas law graduates from the Class of 2023 took jobs in other states. Without ABA accreditation, these graduates could find themselves ineligible to practice outside Texas, effectively boxed into a single state's jurisdiction. For many, this loss of flexibility would be devastating. The deans also emphasized the value the ABA brings in terms of data collection, outcome reporting, and public accountability. Stripping away this layer of oversight, they argue, would not only isolate Texas law graduates but could also undermine public trust in the legal education system itself. A fractured consensus among legal leaders Interestingly, not all voices from within Texas's legal education system are aligned. Robert Chesney, dean of the University of Texas School of Law, the state's highest-ranked law school, chose not to sign the joint letter. Instead, he submitted a separate comment encouraging the court to explore alternative pathways, such as recognizing multiple accrediting bodies or allowing case-by-case exemptions. Chesney's tone was cautious but forward-looking, acknowledging the need for innovation and cost reform while still stressing the importance of preserving national mobility for graduates. His nuanced stance suggests a willingness to evolve, but not at the expense of opportunity. Another notable absence came from Texas A&M Law Dean Robert Ahdieh, who also refrained from joining the group letter. Ahdieh later commented that while competitive pressures might improve the ABA's performance, safeguarding the ability of Texas law graduates to practice across the country must remain 'critical.' The political underpinnings Though framed as a policy review, the roots of this debate run deeper, into the broader political climate of mistrust in long-standing institutions. The ABA, once an uncontroversial gatekeeper, has increasingly become a lightning rod in the national culture wars. Its stances on judicial independence, diversity, and rule-of-law norms have made it a target of conservative administrations. Texas' potential departure from the ABA requirement may be less about educational outcomes and more about reshaping the legal landscape to reflect shifting political ideologies. In doing so, it risks turning legal education into a patchwork of regional standards, with Texas charting a course that isolates its students rather than empowering them. What's at stake for students? Beneath the institutional battles and political rhetoric, students remain the most vulnerable stakeholders. Today's first-year law student in Texas may not know whether their degree will carry the same weight in New York or California when they graduate. Employers outside the state may hesitate to hire, uncertain of the new standards. Prospective students, wary of a narrower future, may opt for schools elsewhere. In effect, a Texas law degree, once seen as a passport to practice anywhere, could become a local credential with limited reach. This erosion of trust in portability could diminish the appeal of Texas law schools and discourage top talent from applying. A precedent in the making The Texas Supreme Court has yet to decide whether it will uphold, revise, or eliminate the ABA accreditation requirement. But as it deliberates, legal educators, students, and national observers are watching closely. Because what Texas decides won't just shape its own legal education system, it could trigger a broader reckoning over who gets to define professional standards in America. If Texas chooses to walk away from the ABA, it won't just be challenging an institution, it may be redrawing the boundaries of legal opportunity itself. TOI Education is on WhatsApp now. Follow us here . Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
Business Wire
27-06-2025
- Business
- Business Wire
Texas Supreme Court Reverses $90 Million Judgment Against Werner Enterprises
OMAHA, Neb.--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Werner Enterprises, Inc. ('Werner') (Nasdaq: WERN), a premier transportation and logistics provider, today announced the Texas Supreme Court has ruled in Werner's favor in reversing and dismissing the landmark $90 million truck accident verdict from 2018. The case centered on a tragic 2014 accident in Texas, where a vehicle traveling in the opposite direction on a divided interstate highway lost control, crossed a median and struck a Werner tractor-trailer. Plaintiffs alleged Werner and its driver were at fault, despite the fact that Werner's driver was traveling well below the posted speed limit, remained in his lane of traffic for the entirety of the incident and was braking before impact, but without sufficient time to avoid collision. The company has asserted from the beginning that the accident was non-preventable and that its driver acted appropriately. Werner appealed the original 2018 verdict and, after more than seven years of appeals, the Texas Supreme Court has now reversed the decision and fully dismissed the lawsuit. The Texas Supreme Court ruled that Werner and its driver were " a mere happenstance of place and time," and that " the sole proximate cause of this accident and these injuries (the sole substantial factor to which the law permits assignment of liability) was the sudden, unexpected hurtling of the victims' vehicle into oncoming highway traffic, for which Werner and its driver bore no responsibility." 'This is a long-awaited win for Werner,' said Werner's President and Chief Legal Officer, Nathan Meisgeier. 'After seven years navigating the appellate process, we are thankful the Texas Supreme Court reached the same conclusion as law enforcement – that the Werner drivers and our company did nothing wrong. A different outcome would have had far-reaching implications beyond the transportation industry.' Meisgeier emphasized, 'We have not and will not lose sight of the tragic loss the Blake family suffered because of this accident. Our continued thoughts and prayers are with the Blake family.' About Werner Enterprises Werner Enterprises, Inc. delivers superior truckload transportation and logistics services to customers across the United States, Mexico and Canada. With 2024 revenues of $3.0 billion, an industry-leading modern truck and trailer fleet, nearly 13,000 talented associates and our innovative Werner EDGE ® technology, we are an essential solutions provider for customers who value the integrity of their supply chain and require safe and exceptional on-time service. Werner ® provides Dedicated and One-Way Truckload services as well as Logistics services that include truckload brokerage, freight management, intermodal and final mile. Werner embraces inclusion as a core value and manages key risks and opportunities through a balanced sustainability strategy.
Yahoo
23-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott vetoes SB 3, cites proposed state THC ban conflicting with federal law
In the 11th hour until the deadline, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has struck down the proposed THC ban from state lawmakers, giving Texans his reason why. Senate Bill 3, authored by Lubbock Republican Sen. Charles Perry, was set to severely restrict the $8 billion hemp industry in Texas. Others are reading: Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signs historic $20 billion water investment bill, talks state impact Perry, along with Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, on their media press tour around Texas earlier in the month, defended the proposed law, saying it would have closed a loophole in state law that allowed "bad actors" to make synthetic cannabis that is "more powerful and more potent than anything we've ever seen before." In a statement on social media, Patrick criticised Abbott's decision to veto SB 3. "Throughout the legislative session, (Gov. Abbott) remained totally silent on Senate Bill 3, the bill that would have banned dangerous THC products in Texas," Patrick stated. "His late-night veto, on an issue supported by 105 of 108 Republicans in the legislature, strongly backed by law enforcement, many in the medical and education communities, and the families who have seen their loved ones' lives destroyed by these very dangerous drugs, leaves them feeling abandoned." Patrick further stated he would hold a press conference to discuss the bill's failure, but it must be noted that this statement was issued before Abbott announced a special session for lawmakers to address SB 3. Document: Texas Gov. Greg Abbott's Veto Proclamation on SB 3 Abbott also released a four-page proclamation as to why he vetoed the bill, stating that the bill was "well-intentioned" but "would never go into effect because of valid constitutional challenges." Abbott further cited a similar bill in 2023 in Arkansas, which was challenged in the courts and has been left in limbo on whether it can be enforced or not. "If I were to allow Senate Bill 3 to become law, its enforcement would be enjoined for years, leaving existing abuses unaddressed. Texas cannot afford to wait," read Abbott's proclamation. Abbott, a former Texas Supreme Court justice and attorney general, said it would create a showdown between federal and state law with legal ramifications for farmers and pharmacists. The governor also said SB 3 could also take private property unconstitutionally — even if the bill is aimed at so-called "bad actors" exploiting a loophole. "But there are also many Texans conducting business responsibly, who invested millions of dollars planting fields or opening up retail stores in reliance on laws making hemp a lawful product," read Abbott's justification. "While States may restrict the use of dangerous contraband, it is a different thing entirely to change the rules in the middle of the game." Others are reading: What's the difference between marijuana, cannabis? 4/20 terms to know. But the reality of the issue does not go unnoticed by the governor, who gave lawmakers the task of creating a law that protects public safety, aligns with federal law, has a "fully funded enforcement structure," and can go into effect without delay. "Passing a law is not the same thing as actually solving a problem," read Abbott's message. "Texas needs a bill that is enforceable and will make our communities safer today, rather than years from now." After the governor's veto, hemp industry leaders released statements praising the governor for his decision but also warning that the issues at hand still need to be addressed more meaningfully. "We respect Governor Abbott's decision and understand his concerns about unintended consequences. That said, the rapid proliferation of high‑potency hemp products in Texas has highlighted a regulatory gap that simply can't be ignored. I hope this signals a renewed commitment to crafting thoughtful legislation that effectively addresses public health and youth protection, without undermining safety," said Jason Vedadi, CEO of Story Cannabis. Others are reading: Delta what? Here's how to understand the difference between Delta 8, 9 and 10 "While the bill's failure to move forward keeps the status quo in place, it should not be mistaken for a long-term solution. There is growing concern around unregulated psychoactive hemp products being marketed without proper safeguards or age restrictions. Lawmakers will need to revisit this issue soon to ensure Texas has a cannabis framework that prioritizes transparency, accountability, and public health. Consumers deserve better than loophole-driven policies," said Sara Gullickson, CEO of Cannabis Business Advisors. "We applaud Governor Abbott's decision regarding Senate Bill 3, which recognizes that sensible regulation is superior to outright prohibition. This outcome preserves thousands of Texas jobs and billions in economic activity while maintaining the state's ability to implement appropriate safeguards. The hemp industry has consistently supported responsible regulation, including strict age verification, product testing, and transparent labeling," said Reid Stewart, CEO of Frozen Fields. As stated above by the governor, lawmakers will be able to address the shortcomings — rather the overreach of SB 3 in a special session in July. The special session is set to convene in Austin on July 21, 2025 and will last 30 days. Mateo Rosiles is the Government & Public Policy reporter for the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal. Got a news tip for him? Email him: mrosiles@ This article originally appeared on Lubbock Avalanche-Journal: Texas Gov. Abbott calls special session to address proposed THC ban
