Shaken baby syndrome is discredited. Why is Robert Roberson still on death row?

Shaken baby syndrome is discredited. Why is Robert Roberson still on death row?

Written by Jeff Kukucka & David Faigman

In a last-ditch effort to save the life of a death row inmate, a bipartisan group of Texas state legislators is trying to save Robert Roberts, who was convicted of murdering his daughter in 2003 based on a now-discredited theory. Roberson was summoned unanimously. Testify in front of them about shaken baby syndrome 5 days ago rear He was scheduled to be executed, effectively forcing the state to keep him alive.

Roberson is one of many people jailed for injuries to children caused by violent shaking, which prosecutors allege was the cause. But research has revealed serious flaws in these rulings, and dozens of other wrongfully convicted defendants have been exonerated based on this theory. But Roberson remains on death row, despite politicians, scientists and others speaking out on his behalf, including the lead detective who investigated him and one of the jurors who convicted him. It is. If his execution goes forward, they and many others believe the state of Texas will be killing an innocent man for a “crime” that never happened.

The scientific understanding of shaken baby syndrome has evolved over the past two decades, and the judiciary requires courts to reconsider old convictions in the light of new discoveries. This is especially true for Mr. Roberson, who will be the first person to be executed in the United States for a conviction based on shaken baby syndrome. Regardless of one’s views on the death penalty, the ultimate punishment must be carried out according to the ultimate standard of evidence, and Roberson’s case falls well short of that standard.

About supporting science journalism

If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting our award-winning journalism. Currently subscribing. By subscribing, you help ensure future generations of influential stories about the discoveries and ideas that shape the world today.

The theory behind shaken baby syndrome dates back to the early 1970s. Two medical researchers at the time, Norman Gasquelch and John Caffey, separately published the first scientific papers explaining how shaking infants can cause fatal internal organ injuries even in the absence of external trauma. I did. Over time, doctors and law enforcement officials in particular came to widely rely on the trifecta of cerebral hemorrhage, brain swelling, and retinal hemorrhage as conclusive evidence that someone had abused a child by shaking them. To support this theory, the researchers cited cases in which a child exhibited these symptoms and a caregiver confessed to shaking the child, ostensibly suggesting that this triad is a reliable way to diagnose abuse. confirmed.

There is no doubt that shaking a child can cause injuries, including the triad of shaken baby syndrome. But the latest research shows that shaking isn’t the problem. only These injuries can also occur due to accidental “falls” (such as falling out of bed) or other medical causes (such as pneumonia, incorrect medication, etc.), all of which were the case for Ms. Roberson’s daughter. Ta. In fact, a 2024 study found that the injuries historically used to diagnose shaking are actually more There is a higher possibility of an accident than a tremor. That is, modern science understands that the presence of these symptoms does not necessarily mean that the child has been abused, nor does the absence of symptoms mean that the child has not been abused.

Why have clinicians mistakenly believed in these three symptoms for so long?Simply put, correcting misconceptions requires a feedback loop that is lacking in child abuse investigations. It often happens. When a doctor diagnoses a living adult and prescribes a treatment, the effectiveness of that treatment provides feedback on the correctness of the diagnosis. If treatment proves ineffective, doctors can learn from this misdiagnosis and adjust future diagnoses accordingly. However, such feedback is not always sufficient. For example, doctors have practiced bloodletting for centuries because it was commonly accepted and appeared to work for some patients, but it is an illusion. It was a correlation. When it comes to tremors, doctors rarely know if your child is shaking. actually Doctors rarely receive feedback that the triad has led to an incorrect diagnosis because the child is usually dead or unable to clearly explain what happened.

Regarding research using confessions by caretakers to establish that abuse has occurred, it is now common knowledge that innocent people sometimes confess to crimes they did not commit, and that confessions are not synonymous with truth. known. Some scholars have argued that the unique circumstances surrounding a suspected shakedown (such as the suspect’s emotional state) particularly increase the risk of a false confession.

Further complicating matters, child abuse determinations are influenced by cognitive biases, with extraneous information leading experts to interpret the same injury in different ways, at least one of which is incorrect. It should be there. For example, one study found that if a child’s parents were told that they were unmarried or drug users, medical professionals were more likely to judge the same childhood injury as abuse rather than an accident, both of which were true for Roberson. It seems so. Another study found that similar unrelated factors cause emergency room doctors to misdiagnose accidental injuries as abuse in an astonishing 83% of cases.

Even knowing about criminal charges can affect how a doctor evaluates your child’s injuries. In one study, independent experts reviewed medical records of cases in which fellow experts had testified that the child had become agitated without their knowledge. In 94 percent of those cases, independent experts concluded that the child’s “head injury was probably or probably due to non-traumatic causes.”

Autopsy decisions are similarly unreliable. A 2021 study found that even if a child’s injuries and medical history were otherwise identical, a coroner’s opinion as to whether a child’s death was an accident or a homicide was influenced by the child’s race and who took them to the hospital. It was greatly influenced by Taka. In response, prominent medical examiners explained that the manner of death is not a “scientific” determination and “often does not fit properly in a court of law.” But juries, including the one in Roberson’s trial, often hear and trust such nuanced opinions, leading some scholars to argue that they do so in U.S. courts, as they do in nearly every other country. They argue that death testimony should not be admitted.

As more research debunks Shaken Baby Syndrome, legal challenges to convictions related to Shaken Baby Syndrome have also been successful. That includes another Texas case in which a man was granted a new trial on “scientific evidence” just eight days before Roberson’s scheduled execution. Since the 2004 trial, knowledge has evolved and a 2024 “not guilty verdict is likely”. Before his death in 2016, even Guskelch, one of the architects of the theory, lamented that “kind-hearted suggestions to avoid injury to children have become excuses.” For imprisoning innocent parents. ” Roberson is one of those innocent parents.

Science is constantly evolving, and even when past mistakes are revealed, we don’t just rest on our laurels. We will take corrective action. Our legal system is no exception. When Robert Roberson was convicted, the triad of trauma was widely accepted as evidence of tremors, but advances in science have made this no longer the case. The due process guarantee of the law must account for such advances, especially when human lives literally depend on it. It is not just unfair for the law to ignore evolving scientific knowledge; It’s a crime.

This is an opinion and analysis article and the views expressed by the author are not necessarily those of the author. scientific american.