Shaken Baby Syndrome Has Been Discredited. Why Is Robert Roberson Still on Death Row?

Shaken baby syndrome has been ruled out. Why is Robert Roberson still on death row?

Who Jeff Kukucka & David Faigman

In a last-minute effort to save the life of an A man on death rowA bipartisan group of Texas lawmakers just did something extraordinary: they did it unanimously subpoenaed by Robert RobersonAccused of killing her daughter in 2003, based on the now-discredited theory of infant syndrome, within five days of testifying before them after was scheduled to be executed, forcing the state to stay alive.

Roberson is one of several people jailed for injuries to a child that prosecutors say resulted from violent shaking. But investigations have revealed serious flaws in those decisions, and dozens of other defendants wrongly convicted under this theory. have been exempted. Yet Roberson remains on death row, even as politicians, scientists and others — including the lead detective who investigated and one of the jurors who convicted him — have spoken out on his behalf. If his execution goes ahead, they and many others believe Texas will be killing an innocent man for a “crime” that never happened.

As the scientific understanding of shaken baby syndrome has evolved over the past 20 years, justice demands that courts revisit old convictions. in light of new discoveries. This is especially true for Roberson, who would be the first person in the US to be executed for a conviction based on shaken baby syndrome. Regardless of one’s view of the death penalty, the final sentence must be held to the ultimate standard of proof, and Roberson’s case falls far short of that standard.

About supporting science journalism

If you like this article, please consider supporting our award-winning journalism subscribing. By purchasing a subscription, you’re helping to ensure a future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas that shape our world.

The theory behind shaken baby syndrome dates back to the early 1970s, when two medical researchers—Norman Guthkelch and John Caffey—published the first scientific papers explaining it. shaking a child It can cause fatal internal injuries even in the absence of external injuries. Over time, doctors and law enforcement officials, among others, began to rely on a triad of symptoms—bleeding in the brain, swelling of the brain, and bleeding in the retina—as definitive proof that someone had abused a child by shaking them. To support this theory, the researchers cited cases where a child showed these symptoms a caretaker admitted to shaking the baby, apparently confirming that the triad is a reliable way to diagnose abuse.

There is no doubt that shaking a baby can cause injuries, including the triad of shaking syndrome. New research, however, has shown that shaking is not alone How these injuries are caused: They can be caused by an accidental “short fall” (eg, falling out of bed) or other medical reasons (eg, pneumonia, inappropriate medication); this was all true of Roberson’s daughter. In fact, a 2024 study found that the lesions historically used to diagnose tremors actually are. more which could happen as a result of accidents than from trembling. In short, modern science understands that the presence of these symptoms does not necessarily mean that a child was abused, nor does their absence mean that they were not abused.

Why did doctors mistakenly trust this triad of symptoms for so long? The short answer is to correct misconceptions it needs a feedback loop this is often missing in child abuse research. When a physician diagnoses a living adult and prescribes a treatment, the effectiveness of that treatment provides feedback on the correctness of his diagnosis; if treatment is ineffective, doctors can learn from this misdiagnosis and adjust future diagnoses accordingly. Such an opinion, however, is not always sufficient; for example, doctors practiced bloodletting for centuries because it was generally accepted and worked for some patients, even if the correlation was illusory. When it comes to tremors, doctors rarely learn whether it was a child or not really shaken, because the child is usually dead or unable to articulate what has happened, so doctors rarely receive the opinion that the triad has led to a misdiagnosis.

As for studies that used a caregiver’s confession to establish that abuse had occurred, it is now well-known the innocent sometimes confesses crimes they did not commit, such as confessions not synonymous with truth. Some scholars have also argued that the unique circumstances of alleged assault cases (such as the emotional state of the suspects) create a conundrum. especially the high risk of false confessions.

Complicating matters further, child abuse decisions are subject to it cognitive biasin which external information leads experts to interpret the same injury in different ways—at least one of which must be incorrect. In one study, for example, medical professionals judged the same childhood injury more often abuse rather than an accident if the child’s parents are said to be unmarried or drug users—they appear to be both— Roberson’s truth. Another study found that these external factors drove emergency physicians misdiagnosed accidental injuries as abuse in a staggering 83 percent of cases.

Knowing about a criminal charge can affect how a doctor evaluates a child’s injuries. In a study, independent experts review medical records unbeknownst to them, a co-expert testified from the cases that the child was shaken. In 94 percent of those cases, independent experts concluded that the child’s “head injuries … may or may not have had a non-traumatic cause.”

Autopsy results are also unreliable. In a 2021 exam, opinions of medical examiners Whether the child’s death was an accident or a homicide, the child’s race and who took them to the hospital affected it, even if the child’s injuries and history were the same. In response, famous medical examiners he explained that the manner of death “is not a ‘scientific’ determination” and “often does not sit well in court.” However, jurors—including some in Roberson’s trial—often hear and trust these weak opinions, which has led some scholars to argue for this form of death testimony. it should not be acceptable In US courts, as in almost every other country.

As research increasing the prevalence of shaken baby syndrome has grown, so have successful legal challenges to criminal convictions based on it, among others. Another Texas case where, eight days before Roberson’s scheduled execution, a man was granted a new trial on the grounds that “scientific knowledge has evolved” since the 2004 trial and would “probably lead to an acquittal” in 2024. Before his death in 2016, so did Guthkelch. one of the architects of the theory—he lamented that his “friendly suggestion to prevent harm to children has become an excuse to imprison innocent parents.” Roberson is one of those innocent parents.

Science is constantly evolving, and when it reveals a mistake from the past, we don’t just resign ourselves to it; we take corrective measures. Our legal system should be no different. When Robert Roberson was convicted, the trio of injuries was accepted as evidence of concussion, but as science has advanced, this is no longer the case. The law’s guarantee of due process must take this progress into account, especially when a person’s life literally depends on it. For the law to ignore the evolution of scientific knowledge is not only unfair; it’s criminal

This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author(s) are not necessarily their own. American scientific.