October 8, 2025 • 17 mins
The state of Texas is set to execute 58-year-old Robert Roberson next week, but his attorneys have filed a last minute request for a new trial based on a recent Dateline podcast. Roberson would be the first person to ever be put to death for shaken baby syndrome, following the 2002 death of his 2 year old daughter Nikki. The science he was convicted on is no longer regarded and is considered “junk science.” That information alone brought lawmakers from both sides of the aisle to intervene last year, to stay his execution, but that stay is up and Roberson time is up. Now, baby Nikki’s maternal grandfather is speaking up, telling a story, if true, of egregious conduct by the judge in this case from the hospital where Nikki died, all the way to the courtroom he presided over in Roberson’s trial.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Hey there, folks. It is Wednesday, October the eighth. A
man has been on death row for decades, but a
podcast interview is going to be the thing that could
get him off. Welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. Rohades.
This is probably going to be a good case study
for why we should not be executing people. If somebody
(00:22):
could be on death row for almost thirty years and
one podcast interview is the thing that gets us to
rethink the case. That's where we are in this case
in Texas.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
Yeah, and this is a case that has so many
people involved for a very long time. This is a
case we have covered several times on our podcasts because
you had an entire state legislator legislature actually coming together,
Republicans and Democrats trying to get this guy's execution. State
in what state? Texas?
Speaker 1 (00:53):
Texas? First of all, trying to save a death row
inmate two bipartisan in Texas. Yeah, so that lets you
know what the hell's going on.
Speaker 2 (01:01):
Yeah, and they manage to get this man, Robert Robertson,
fifty eight years old, a stay of execution for just
one year. Unfortunately, and I say unfortunately for people who
do believe in his innocence. He is set to die
next week.
Speaker 1 (01:17):
And look, there were enough questions, and there's a reason
there are all these questions because if they do execute
Robert robertson next week, fifty eight years old, if they
do go for it with the execution, he will be
the first person in the country ever executed based on
being convicted for a shaken baby syndrome murder. Yes, he
(01:38):
would be the first.
Speaker 2 (01:39):
We've done this story because the details are so, I say, fascinating,
and I hate to say that when a man's life
is at stake, but it begs the question about junk science.
Speaker 1 (01:49):
Okay, it is. I think it's fair medically fascinating. Forensically,
this is fascinating.
Speaker 2 (01:54):
It is. It certainly is so. He was so by
the way, I just want to say, his execution date
is on October sixteenth, by lethal injection. We are absolutely
going to be following this story up until that day.
But he was convicted for the two thousand and two
death of his two year old daughter, Nicki. He says
that he fell asleep with Nicki. He says he woke
(02:16):
up and she had fallen out of the bed. Her
lips were blue, she was unconscious, and he took her
to the hospital. There's a lot of details that follow
after that that make this story not so black and white,
not so cut and dry, and it's certainly been a
big part of the arguments his lawyers have been making
to dry not just to get his execution state, but
to exonerate him completely.
Speaker 1 (02:36):
Because it's look, we know more about shaking baby syndrome
today than we did twenty was this account there twenty.
Speaker 2 (02:44):
Whatever years twenty twenty three years ago?
Speaker 1 (02:47):
Right? We know more and some of the facts or
the tests essentially, if you will forgive that crude way
of putting it that they would use to figure out
if it's shaken baby syndrome have been discredited, like we've
thrown those out. Don't use use that anymore. That is
what he was convicted of, using those old rules, those
old methods, those old rules and methods that the medical
(03:08):
community now has thrown out. You're asking, well, why should
he not? Why are we going to kill a man
over something we call junk science?
Speaker 2 (03:15):
Now? Yeah, and there are there were complex medical issues
that this young girl had been dealing with, including she
had been prescribed certain kinds of drugs, and we'll get
into all that. But when you really look at the evidence,
and if a jury today were to take a look
at the same evidence we're looking at now, with the
understanding we have about shaking baby syndrome, most people would
(03:36):
suggest and including all those lawmakers, that he would never
have been convicted today.
Speaker 1 (03:40):
So that's where we are on the case. Look, there
are plenty of people, and there were some in government
there in Texas that now, this dude's a monster and
the child that could explain had some blunt force trauma
is what the those on that side keep pointing to.
So this is now not a matter of we don't
want to relitigate that case. But there are new facts
(04:01):
now that have come up. And it's so interesting to
think robes and what in congressional hearings and things we
have been watching that people offering are talking about. Yes,
he said in a podcast interview. Well you said in
a podcast how much podcast have made an impact? And
here we are today talking about the possibility of a
podcast interview getting a guy off death row.
Speaker 2 (04:23):
Yes. So this there was a new filing on Monday
from his lawyers and they are claiming there is new
evidence of judicial misconduct, that new evidence came from an
episode of Datelines podcast. This was Lester Holtz interview with
the maternal grandfather of Nicki. So this isn't Robert Robertson's
(04:45):
father saying this. This is his baby's mother, Nicky's mother's father.
So there isn't a compelling reason why he would be
saying any of this to try and save his former
son in law. This is a man who actually has
some really interesting facts about what led up to the
arrest of Robertson that is certainly questionable.
Speaker 1 (05:09):
And the key here and let's explain what there's new
evidence that they're pointing to. And we call it evidence,
but they're saying that the grandfather here that's been interviewed
by Dateline for a podcast. His name is Larry Bowman.
Larry Bowman, Nicky's grandfather. Okay. So Bowman said in the
interview that the judge Bascombe Bentley called the hospital after
(05:33):
Nicky's injury and directed them to call the Bowmans, the grandparents,
for permission to remove the baby from life support. Bowman
said the judge actually told the hospital that the Bowmans,
who are actually the grandparents, were the parents. Therefore, they
assumed that the grandparents had the right to take the
(05:53):
child off life support. Problem here, they did not have
the right to make the call. Robertson was the legal
guardian of the child. The roads That could be reason enough,
But they even have more things they point to and saying, yeah,
the judge that made the call to the hospital.
Speaker 2 (06:12):
Guess what, he's the one who also signed the arrest
warrant for Robert Robertson and then presided over the trial.
How is that?
Speaker 1 (06:24):
Okay, we should at least take a beat and not
kill this guy next week on the sixteenth, if nothing else,
look at but if this, if we're just finding this out,
is this the first time that anybody, any prosecutor anybody
ever heard of this fact? We got to take a beat.
Speaker 2 (06:39):
It gives me chills to be frank here, because this
is this goes above and beyond all the other junk
science evidence that we've been talking about that got lawmakers involved.
This is a completely separate issue that is deeply concerning
about justice in this country. The fact that one man,
from start to finish was basically respond ncible for this
(07:01):
guy being on death row. Truly, and you have to ask,
did he have a vendetta did he have a reason
behind it, Well, we can't ask him because he's gone.
He's dead, so he isn't around to even talk or
explain about how it happened, why it happened to any
of that. But Robertson had been granted custody two months
earlier of his daughter, and he certainly he was a
(07:21):
single dad now at this point and taking care of
his daughter, and he clearly for him to not have
been the one to make the call about his own
daughter being removed from life support. And also, you know,
we haven't even gotten into this, but he was diagnosed,
I believe a few years later, of being autistic, and
that explained even the head detective who actually contributed to
(07:45):
Robert Robertson being convicted in court said part of the
reason why he thought he was guilty was because he
seemed so emotionally removed from the situation when he was
in the hospital and his daughter was you know, had
grievous injuries or a grievous issues, he seemed emotional. Well,
now that's been explained by his autism. And so that
detective has been on a full campaign for the past
(08:06):
several years trying to say this please, please, please. I
believe this man is innocent, and I feel responsible because
part of my testimony put him away.
Speaker 1 (08:14):
So even that, isn't that one of the things. I mean,
we know more about autism, there's more awareness even I mean,
the medical community knows more about autism, but we in
the public are at least aware of it. Differently, every body,
I think knows if you meet someone I know, someone
who's autistic, you now know what that means, and you
now aren't offended if they're not looking you in the
(08:36):
eye or not responding a certain way. It's like we
have just generally a better knowledge. If the detective back
then had that same knowledge, maybe he would have looked
at it differently. Maybe he would have been saying this
same thing he's saying now back then. Who knows. But
we know too much now, too much new information. We
have learned a lot more about science, this case about
(08:56):
death about too much to say those circums fans is
then should apply now and we have got this. You
can't make a mistake.
Speaker 2 (09:05):
And what's interesting to me is, you know, you had
this huge campaign just based on the fact that, yes,
you have this lead detective and the fact that this
science that he was convicted by because of what they
thought were Little Nikki's issues and what led to and
caused her death. The fact that you had all these
lawmakers trying to stay his execution, just punting at a year.
(09:31):
I don't know what that got anyone, and where all
of that stands now in terms of the legal wrangling
and what's being done behind the scenes. If anything, did
he stop this execution?
Speaker 1 (09:41):
He ever? Jack my memory, remember they had a hearing
set and he was supposed to testify I think via conference,
but they ended up canceling that. Yes, that's sound right, Yes, okay,
there was a lot happening at that time. But again
they managed to get a delay. And again we're talking
about Texas. You know, Texas where the Democrats and Republicans
(10:02):
don't get along so much that literally the Democrats went
on the run and the Republicans sent law enforcement after them.
Those Democrats and Republicans got together on this in a
state that they have to be number one or number
two in executions in this country historically speaking in an
even close that group is trying to save this man's life.
Speaker 2 (10:26):
That is unreal. Yes, so I should say Robertson did
file a separate plea this month so that he could
file this new legal challenge claiming his imprisonment is illegal
because of the overwhelming evidence that he was convicted using
that junk science. So that appeal is still ongoing, so
(10:47):
he still has that working for him, in addition to
this new information that came out in the podcast. So
we as a couple avenues, but time is running out.
We're talking eight days from now, yes, a week and
a day from now from today. Next Thursday is his
scheduled execution at six pm.
Speaker 1 (11:03):
And I'm pretty sure first time around there was nothing
about Governor Abbott that signaled he was in any mood
to commute this sentence, and he was out of options
at the time. Then look, there is something else we're
talking So it's not necessarily even a guilt or innocence
we're talking about. He's not even asking people to look
at the case but the facts of the case. But
(11:25):
look at the facts of how he even got to jail,
and it's something wrong with a man that's just constitutionally,
that is not how it's opposed to work. This judge
was not just judge. He ended up being jury and
looks like he's going to be executioner with what he
did call the hospital. These are the parents who aren't
the parents the child who I don't know medically how
much was it. I guess if a child was on
(11:48):
life support, I assume it was not going to go well.
But the father didn't get a chance to make the
decision about his own child.
Speaker 2 (11:55):
There's so many things going on here, and.
Speaker 1 (11:58):
His rights were violated, and you have to stop for
a minute and take a beat on this guy's case.
Speaker 2 (12:03):
Yes, of course. And so when we come back, we're
going to tell you what Robertson's lawyers are saying, what
their plea to the court is, what their plea to
the country is about why they believe their client should
not only be allowed to live, but should be set free.
And continuing now this episode of Amy and TJ, where
(12:30):
we are talking about a case we've been talking about
for more than a year now. Fifty eight year old
Robert Robertson is scheduled to die by lethal injection next
week in the state of Texas, even though his execution
was put on hold for a year by a bipartisan
group of Texas lawmakers who reviewed some of the evidence,
who have been looking into this case. He would be,
(12:52):
if he is executed, the first person in this country
to die after a conviction for shaken baby syndrome. His
two year old girl, Nikki, died in two thousand and two,
and there are a lot of competing explanations as to
why she died, how she could have died, but there
certainly is now in today's understanding of what shaken baby
(13:14):
syndrome is an explanation, a plausible explanation that Nikki died
from a combination of an illness, some drugs that are
now no longer allowed to be prescribed for children, and
falling out of bed. They all could have contributed to
where she ended up on life support, and it could not.
It's possible, by today's medical standards that Robert Robertson had
(13:36):
nothing to do at all with his child's death, which
is what he has claimed from the beginning. But now
there is new evidence from a podcast from Dayline that
actually shows some pretty egregious misconduct, if true, in his
actual arrest and certainly in the trial that ensued. And
(13:58):
so we are now hearing from his lawyer who is
asking and they filed a petition earlier this week to
try and get a stay of execution. But we're going
to read exactly what that language was that they filed
with the court. Any objective member of the public, with
knowledge of the new facts would reasonably believe that Judge
Bentley had prejudiced mister Robertson's guilt and, animated by that
(14:23):
presumption of guilt, improperly circumvented the law governing parental rights
and the guarantees of due process, and thus should have
recused himself from presiding over mister Robertson's criminal case to
preserve the appearance of impartiality. Judge Bentley's failure to do
so caused structural error and requires a new trial. So
(14:47):
they are asking for a new trial.
Speaker 1 (14:50):
Look, we need to call a lawyer because I wonder
is there's a good ground sport.
Speaker 2 (14:55):
It seems like it.
Speaker 1 (14:57):
His rights were violated and the judge in that judge,
he did not get a chance to make the call
about his child. His constitutional rights were violated. Period. The
judge played a role in that. The judge who signed
is a rest warrant, and the judge who presided over
his trial, I don't know. And he's talking to a
lawyer to see where that's not a.
Speaker 2 (15:18):
Problem as a as a non legal expert, but as
a member of the human race, it just seems to
me fairly obvious that that is absolutely a conflict of
interest from start to finish, and that in and of
itself would allow legally, it would seem, it would appear
it would. I just think from anyone who's looking at
it from a distance could say, yeah, that dude deserves
(15:41):
a new trial, from the medical knowledge that we've gained
over the past two decades, from this seemingly egregious conduct
by a judge who seemed or could have possibly had
an agenda for whatever reason, all those two things combined alone,
and then you have lawmakers from a state that has
(16:02):
zero problem for the most part, sending people to death
row actually coming together in a rare instance, to try
and keep this man alive. For those reasons, why wouldn't
we give this man a new trial? I mean, I'd
pose it from that perspective, I don't get it.
Speaker 1 (16:19):
But this has been an intriguing case for a long time,
and hey, look, this is not any matter of guilt
or Innocen's arguing anything. I will always argue, geez, we
cannot make a mistake. So this is too many questions.
There have been some folks that we've covered a lot
of executions lately, and some of them go to that
execution chamber say yep, I did it, and I'm sorry
(16:39):
for what I did. This is just and you feel
differently about those, even if you're against the death penalty.
This is just one where we seem to be in
a rush to execute a guy just when there's too
many questions.
Speaker 2 (16:50):
And if this has you as interested as it does us,
we would encourage you to read up on this story.
I mean, I actually feel emotionally invested in this, like
I am nervous for next week because I hate to
think that this country that we live in, this country
that we love, would make this call. It makes me
feel actually physically ill with this case in particular. So
(17:11):
we will continue to follow this and bring you any
updates as they warrant, But we appreciate you listening to us.
I made me roboch alongside TJ. Holmes, and we will
talk to you very soon.
Hey there, folks. It is Wednesday, October the eighth. A
man has been on death row for decades, but a
podcast interview is going to be the thing that could
get him off. Welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. Rohades.
This is probably going to be a good case study
for why we should not be executing people. If somebody
(00:22):
could be on death row for almost thirty years and
one podcast interview is the thing that gets us to
rethink the case. That's where we are in this case
in Texas.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
Yeah, and this is a case that has so many
people involved for a very long time. This is a
case we have covered several times on our podcasts because
you had an entire state legislator legislature actually coming together,
Republicans and Democrats trying to get this guy's execution. State
in what state? Texas?
Speaker 1 (00:53):
Texas? First of all, trying to save a death row
inmate two bipartisan in Texas. Yeah, so that lets you
know what the hell's going on.
Speaker 2 (01:01):
Yeah, and they manage to get this man, Robert Robertson,
fifty eight years old, a stay of execution for just
one year. Unfortunately, and I say unfortunately for people who
do believe in his innocence. He is set to die
next week.
Speaker 1 (01:17):
And look, there were enough questions, and there's a reason
there are all these questions because if they do execute
Robert robertson next week, fifty eight years old, if they
do go for it with the execution, he will be
the first person in the country ever executed based on
being convicted for a shaken baby syndrome murder. Yes, he
(01:38):
would be the first.
Speaker 2 (01:39):
We've done this story because the details are so, I say, fascinating,
and I hate to say that when a man's life
is at stake, but it begs the question about junk science.
Speaker 1 (01:49):
Okay, it is. I think it's fair medically fascinating. Forensically,
this is fascinating.
Speaker 2 (01:54):
It is. It certainly is so. He was so by
the way, I just want to say, his execution date
is on October sixteenth, by lethal injection. We are absolutely
going to be following this story up until that day.
But he was convicted for the two thousand and two
death of his two year old daughter, Nicki. He says
that he fell asleep with Nicki. He says he woke
(02:16):
up and she had fallen out of the bed. Her
lips were blue, she was unconscious, and he took her
to the hospital. There's a lot of details that follow
after that that make this story not so black and white,
not so cut and dry, and it's certainly been a
big part of the arguments his lawyers have been making
to dry not just to get his execution state, but
to exonerate him completely.
Speaker 1 (02:36):
Because it's look, we know more about shaking baby syndrome
today than we did twenty was this account there twenty.
Speaker 2 (02:44):
Whatever years twenty twenty three years ago?
Speaker 1 (02:47):
Right? We know more and some of the facts or
the tests essentially, if you will forgive that crude way
of putting it that they would use to figure out
if it's shaken baby syndrome have been discredited, like we've
thrown those out. Don't use use that anymore. That is
what he was convicted of, using those old rules, those
old methods, those old rules and methods that the medical
(03:08):
community now has thrown out. You're asking, well, why should
he not? Why are we going to kill a man
over something we call junk science?
Speaker 2 (03:15):
Now? Yeah, and there are there were complex medical issues
that this young girl had been dealing with, including she
had been prescribed certain kinds of drugs, and we'll get
into all that. But when you really look at the evidence,
and if a jury today were to take a look
at the same evidence we're looking at now, with the
understanding we have about shaking baby syndrome, most people would
(03:36):
suggest and including all those lawmakers, that he would never
have been convicted today.
Speaker 1 (03:40):
So that's where we are on the case. Look, there
are plenty of people, and there were some in government
there in Texas that now, this dude's a monster and
the child that could explain had some blunt force trauma
is what the those on that side keep pointing to.
So this is now not a matter of we don't
want to relitigate that case. But there are new facts
(04:01):
now that have come up. And it's so interesting to
think robes and what in congressional hearings and things we
have been watching that people offering are talking about. Yes,
he said in a podcast interview. Well you said in
a podcast how much podcast have made an impact? And
here we are today talking about the possibility of a
podcast interview getting a guy off death row.
Speaker 2 (04:23):
Yes. So this there was a new filing on Monday
from his lawyers and they are claiming there is new
evidence of judicial misconduct, that new evidence came from an
episode of Datelines podcast. This was Lester Holtz interview with
the maternal grandfather of Nicki. So this isn't Robert Robertson's
(04:45):
father saying this. This is his baby's mother, Nicky's mother's father.
So there isn't a compelling reason why he would be
saying any of this to try and save his former
son in law. This is a man who actually has
some really interesting facts about what led up to the
arrest of Robertson that is certainly questionable.
Speaker 1 (05:09):
And the key here and let's explain what there's new
evidence that they're pointing to. And we call it evidence,
but they're saying that the grandfather here that's been interviewed
by Dateline for a podcast. His name is Larry Bowman.
Larry Bowman, Nicky's grandfather. Okay. So Bowman said in the
interview that the judge Bascombe Bentley called the hospital after
(05:33):
Nicky's injury and directed them to call the Bowmans, the grandparents,
for permission to remove the baby from life support. Bowman
said the judge actually told the hospital that the Bowmans,
who are actually the grandparents, were the parents. Therefore, they
assumed that the grandparents had the right to take the
(05:53):
child off life support. Problem here, they did not have
the right to make the call. Robertson was the legal
guardian of the child. The roads That could be reason enough,
But they even have more things they point to and saying, yeah,
the judge that made the call to the hospital.
Speaker 2 (06:12):
Guess what, he's the one who also signed the arrest
warrant for Robert Robertson and then presided over the trial.
How is that?
Speaker 1 (06:24):
Okay, we should at least take a beat and not
kill this guy next week on the sixteenth, if nothing else,
look at but if this, if we're just finding this out,
is this the first time that anybody, any prosecutor anybody
ever heard of this fact? We got to take a beat.
Speaker 2 (06:39):
It gives me chills to be frank here, because this
is this goes above and beyond all the other junk
science evidence that we've been talking about that got lawmakers involved.
This is a completely separate issue that is deeply concerning
about justice in this country. The fact that one man,
from start to finish was basically respond ncible for this
(07:01):
guy being on death row. Truly, and you have to ask,
did he have a vendetta did he have a reason
behind it, Well, we can't ask him because he's gone.
He's dead, so he isn't around to even talk or
explain about how it happened, why it happened to any
of that. But Robertson had been granted custody two months
earlier of his daughter, and he certainly he was a
(07:21):
single dad now at this point and taking care of
his daughter, and he clearly for him to not have
been the one to make the call about his own
daughter being removed from life support. And also, you know,
we haven't even gotten into this, but he was diagnosed,
I believe a few years later, of being autistic, and
that explained even the head detective who actually contributed to
(07:45):
Robert Robertson being convicted in court said part of the
reason why he thought he was guilty was because he
seemed so emotionally removed from the situation when he was
in the hospital and his daughter was you know, had
grievous injuries or a grievous issues, he seemed emotional. Well,
now that's been explained by his autism. And so that
detective has been on a full campaign for the past
(08:06):
several years trying to say this please, please, please. I
believe this man is innocent, and I feel responsible because
part of my testimony put him away.
Speaker 1 (08:14):
So even that, isn't that one of the things. I mean,
we know more about autism, there's more awareness even I mean,
the medical community knows more about autism, but we in
the public are at least aware of it. Differently, every body,
I think knows if you meet someone I know, someone
who's autistic, you now know what that means, and you
now aren't offended if they're not looking you in the
(08:36):
eye or not responding a certain way. It's like we
have just generally a better knowledge. If the detective back
then had that same knowledge, maybe he would have looked
at it differently. Maybe he would have been saying this
same thing he's saying now back then. Who knows. But
we know too much now, too much new information. We
have learned a lot more about science, this case about
(08:56):
death about too much to say those circums fans is
then should apply now and we have got this. You
can't make a mistake.
Speaker 2 (09:05):
And what's interesting to me is, you know, you had
this huge campaign just based on the fact that, yes,
you have this lead detective and the fact that this
science that he was convicted by because of what they
thought were Little Nikki's issues and what led to and
caused her death. The fact that you had all these
lawmakers trying to stay his execution, just punting at a year.
(09:31):
I don't know what that got anyone, and where all
of that stands now in terms of the legal wrangling
and what's being done behind the scenes. If anything, did
he stop this execution?
Speaker 1 (09:41):
He ever? Jack my memory, remember they had a hearing
set and he was supposed to testify I think via conference,
but they ended up canceling that. Yes, that's sound right, Yes, okay,
there was a lot happening at that time. But again
they managed to get a delay. And again we're talking
about Texas. You know, Texas where the Democrats and Republicans
(10:02):
don't get along so much that literally the Democrats went
on the run and the Republicans sent law enforcement after them.
Those Democrats and Republicans got together on this in a
state that they have to be number one or number
two in executions in this country historically speaking in an
even close that group is trying to save this man's life.
Speaker 2 (10:26):
That is unreal. Yes, so I should say Robertson did
file a separate plea this month so that he could
file this new legal challenge claiming his imprisonment is illegal
because of the overwhelming evidence that he was convicted using
that junk science. So that appeal is still ongoing, so
(10:47):
he still has that working for him, in addition to
this new information that came out in the podcast. So
we as a couple avenues, but time is running out.
We're talking eight days from now, yes, a week and
a day from now from today. Next Thursday is his
scheduled execution at six pm.
Speaker 1 (11:03):
And I'm pretty sure first time around there was nothing
about Governor Abbott that signaled he was in any mood
to commute this sentence, and he was out of options
at the time. Then look, there is something else we're
talking So it's not necessarily even a guilt or innocence
we're talking about. He's not even asking people to look
at the case but the facts of the case. But
(11:25):
look at the facts of how he even got to jail,
and it's something wrong with a man that's just constitutionally,
that is not how it's opposed to work. This judge
was not just judge. He ended up being jury and
looks like he's going to be executioner with what he
did call the hospital. These are the parents who aren't
the parents the child who I don't know medically how
much was it. I guess if a child was on
(11:48):
life support, I assume it was not going to go well.
But the father didn't get a chance to make the
decision about his own child.
Speaker 2 (11:55):
There's so many things going on here, and.
Speaker 1 (11:58):
His rights were violated, and you have to stop for
a minute and take a beat on this guy's case.
Speaker 2 (12:03):
Yes, of course. And so when we come back, we're
going to tell you what Robertson's lawyers are saying, what
their plea to the court is, what their plea to
the country is about why they believe their client should
not only be allowed to live, but should be set free.
And continuing now this episode of Amy and TJ, where
(12:30):
we are talking about a case we've been talking about
for more than a year now. Fifty eight year old
Robert Robertson is scheduled to die by lethal injection next
week in the state of Texas, even though his execution
was put on hold for a year by a bipartisan
group of Texas lawmakers who reviewed some of the evidence,
who have been looking into this case. He would be,
(12:52):
if he is executed, the first person in this country
to die after a conviction for shaken baby syndrome. His
two year old girl, Nikki, died in two thousand and two,
and there are a lot of competing explanations as to
why she died, how she could have died, but there
certainly is now in today's understanding of what shaken baby
(13:14):
syndrome is an explanation, a plausible explanation that Nikki died
from a combination of an illness, some drugs that are
now no longer allowed to be prescribed for children, and
falling out of bed. They all could have contributed to
where she ended up on life support, and it could not.
It's possible, by today's medical standards that Robert Robertson had
(13:36):
nothing to do at all with his child's death, which
is what he has claimed from the beginning. But now
there is new evidence from a podcast from Dayline that
actually shows some pretty egregious misconduct, if true, in his
actual arrest and certainly in the trial that ensued. And
(13:58):
so we are now hearing from his lawyer who is
asking and they filed a petition earlier this week to
try and get a stay of execution. But we're going
to read exactly what that language was that they filed
with the court. Any objective member of the public, with
knowledge of the new facts would reasonably believe that Judge
Bentley had prejudiced mister Robertson's guilt and, animated by that
(14:23):
presumption of guilt, improperly circumvented the law governing parental rights
and the guarantees of due process, and thus should have
recused himself from presiding over mister Robertson's criminal case to
preserve the appearance of impartiality. Judge Bentley's failure to do
so caused structural error and requires a new trial. So
(14:47):
they are asking for a new trial.
Speaker 1 (14:50):
Look, we need to call a lawyer because I wonder
is there's a good ground sport.
Speaker 2 (14:55):
It seems like it.
Speaker 1 (14:57):
His rights were violated and the judge in that judge,
he did not get a chance to make the call
about his child. His constitutional rights were violated. Period. The
judge played a role in that. The judge who signed
is a rest warrant, and the judge who presided over
his trial, I don't know. And he's talking to a
lawyer to see where that's not a.
Speaker 2 (15:18):
Problem as a as a non legal expert, but as
a member of the human race, it just seems to
me fairly obvious that that is absolutely a conflict of
interest from start to finish, and that in and of
itself would allow legally, it would seem, it would appear
it would. I just think from anyone who's looking at
it from a distance could say, yeah, that dude deserves
(15:41):
a new trial, from the medical knowledge that we've gained
over the past two decades, from this seemingly egregious conduct
by a judge who seemed or could have possibly had
an agenda for whatever reason, all those two things combined alone,
and then you have lawmakers from a state that has
(16:02):
zero problem for the most part, sending people to death
row actually coming together in a rare instance, to try
and keep this man alive. For those reasons, why wouldn't
we give this man a new trial? I mean, I'd
pose it from that perspective, I don't get it.
Speaker 1 (16:19):
But this has been an intriguing case for a long time,
and hey, look, this is not any matter of guilt
or Innocen's arguing anything. I will always argue, geez, we
cannot make a mistake. So this is too many questions.
There have been some folks that we've covered a lot
of executions lately, and some of them go to that
execution chamber say yep, I did it, and I'm sorry
(16:39):
for what I did. This is just and you feel
differently about those, even if you're against the death penalty.
This is just one where we seem to be in
a rush to execute a guy just when there's too
many questions.
Speaker 2 (16:50):
And if this has you as interested as it does us,
we would encourage you to read up on this story.
I mean, I actually feel emotionally invested in this, like
I am nervous for next week because I hate to
think that this country that we live in, this country
that we love, would make this call. It makes me
feel actually physically ill with this case in particular. So
(17:11):
we will continue to follow this and bring you any
updates as they warrant, But we appreciate you listening to us.
I made me roboch alongside TJ. Holmes, and we will
talk to you very soon.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com