TV personality Dr. Phil McGraw and acclaimed author John Grisham testified on Monday before Texas lawmakers, who halted the execution of death row inmate Robert Roberson just last week.

Roberson was supposed to testify following a last-minute stay of execution he received but was postponed due to numerous legal issues and disputes. The House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence opted to delay his testimony and heard from several other witnesses instead.

The committee is assessing whether to revise a Texas law aimed at aiding those wrongfully convicted based on inadequate scientific evidence. They had previously issued a subpoena for Roberson as a strategy to prevent his execution, which was related to the death of his 2-year-old daughter, Nikki. (His conviction was largely based on the now-discredited Shaken Baby Syndrome theory.)

McGraw, who believes the death penalty is warranted in certain instances, testified that Roberson’s jury did not receive all the necessary details, insisting that Roberson was wrongly convicted. This view is supported by numerous medical experts and even the lead detective of the case, who now acknowledges the investigation was flawed.

“I am completely convinced that we are witnessing a potential miscarriage of justice,” McGraw told the committee regarding Roberson’s situation. “I firmly believe that Mr. Roberson has not had appropriate due process and has yet to experience a fair trial.”

Here’s what you need to know about Monday’s hearings and Dr. Phil’s involvement.

Why did Dr. Phil testify?

Though McGraw is not a medical doctor, he holds a doctorate in clinical psychology and has actively followed Roberson’s case. He has visited the inmate multiple times and conducted extensive research with the Innocence Project. Recently, he aired a two-part series examining the dubious forensic evidence that led to Roberson’s conviction, particularly scrutinizing the discredited Shaken Baby Syndrome concept. These episodes raised serious questions about the trial’s integrity and the validity of the evidence used.

The series, titled “Shaken Baby Syndrome, Junk Science & The Man Sitting on Death Row” and “Robert Roberson: Is He Innocent?”, posed essential queries regarding outdated medical beliefs and the risk of wrongful convictions.

McGraw stressed the critical need to reevaluate the forensic evidence presented in Roberson’s trial, emphasizing that the implications are significant.

“The future of the death penalty is at stake here; getting this wrong could spark serious backlash against capital punishment,” he stated.

John Grisham, known for works like “The Firm” and “A Time to Kill,” also testified in support of Roberson’s innocence.

What was Robert Roberson convicted of?

In 2002, Roberson was found guilty of murdering his daughter at their home in Palestine, East Texas.

He reported that he heard Nikki crying and found her had fallen out of bed. After comforting her, they both returned to sleep. When he next woke, he discovered that Nikki was not breathing, and her lips were blue. At the emergency room, doctors noted symptoms consistent with brain death. She was declared deceased the following day.

At the time, medical personnel and investigators quickly concluded that Nikki died from shaken baby syndrome. However, it was later discovered she had pneumonia in both lungs, pre-existing health issues for which she had been given opioids (now banned for children), and unrecognized sepsis.

The idea of Shaken Baby Syndrome has largely been discredited as unreliable, and the chief investigator in Roberson’s case admitted to YSL News’s The Excerpt podcast that he mishandled the investigation.

“Robert is completely innocent, and we made a significant error because we were focused on the wrong aspects,” Brian Wharton stated, noting that his biases and misunderstandings led him to wrongfully accuse Roberson.

“I was mistaken. I didn’t perceive Robert correctly. I did not recognize Robert,” Wharton confessed. “I can assure you he is a good and kind man. He did not commit the crime the state of Texas and I have wrongly attributed to him.”

The Background of Robert Roberson’s Execution Stay

The situation surrounding Robert Roberson’s execution took a significant turn when the Texas House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence held an extensive session last week. They heard expert testimonies about Roberson’s case and made a unanimous decision to issue a subpoena for him to testify on Monday—just four days before his scheduled execution.

Despite the subpoena, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, responsible for carrying out executions, announced on YSL News that it was “preparing and planning to proceed as normal” for the execution set for Thursday.

This led to Judge Jessica Mangrum in Travis County addressing the arguments from Texas Republican Rep. Jeff Leach and Democratic Rep. Joe Moody, who requested a temporary restraining order to delay the execution to facilitate Roberson’s testimony. Judge Mangrum approved the restraining order, but the state Attorney General’s Office quickly appealed, resulting in the Texas Criminal Court of Appeals overturning her decision.

Despite this setback, Leach and Moody escalated the issue to the Texas Supreme Court, filing an urgent motion for a stay of execution to ensure Roberson could testify on Monday.

“If TDCJ (the Texas Department of Criminal Justice) moves ahead with executing Mr. Roberson on October 17, it will permanently prevent the Committee from hearing his essential and relevant testimony, which is their right,” they contended. “This testimony is crucial for the Committee and the Texas public, as it will help advance their goals of ensuring just and fair law enforcement and execution.”

The court then decided to halt the execution to permit the testimony.

Republican Governor Greg Abbott, who had remained silent for weeks, intervened on Monday by urging the Texas Supreme Court to disregard the lawmakers’ subpoena.

In his amicus brief, Abbott claimed that only the governor has the authority to grant clemency, including a 30-day delay, and argued that the court’s directive would disrupt the separation of powers established in the state Constitution.

What Comes Next?

Moving forward, the House committee is anticipated to keep hearing testimonies, including one from Roberson himself, though the exact timeline remains uncertain.

The committee is currently at odds with the state Attorney General’s Office, which opposes Roberson testifying in person. However, the committee and Roberson’s legal team assert that his in-person testimony is crucial for multiple reasons, notably that he is autistic and struggles with technology.