Thursday, September 25, 2025

Robert Roberson: Death Row; Texas: (Development): He will not petition for clemency ahead of his scheduled execution in three weeks and will instead focus on obtaining a new trial in his capital murder conviction, his lawyer (Gretchen Sween) said Wednesday. The Texas Tribune (Reporter Kayla Guo) reports, noting that: In a statement, Gretchen Sween, Roberson’s lawyer, said that she advised Roberson not to apply for clemency again because it would offer a “grossly inadequate remedy.” “A commutation of sentence is not justice for an innocent man who was wrongfully convicted of a crime that never occurred,” she said. “Relief for Mr. Roberson must come from the courts.”


QUOTE OF THE DAY: "Sween added that the board rejected Roberson’s application for clemency last year “without a hearing and without any explanation,” making it “impossible to discern what kind of information might be persuasive.”

“It is difficult to imagine a more robustly supported application than the one submitted for Mr. Roberson last year,” she said, adding that clemency would not “allow for the long overdue assessment of the objective medical evidence” in Roberson’s case and would ”only divert precious time and resources from the fundamental mission: obtaining a new trial for Robert at long last.”

———————————————————————--

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Roberson also has an outstanding appeal at the Court of Criminal Appeals, Texas’ highest criminal court, presenting additional expert opinions finding that Nikki’s shaken baby diagnosis was unsound and that the autopsy ruling her death a homicide was flawed. That appeal also highlights the court’s decision in October 2024 to overturn the shaken baby conviction of a Dallas man. Additionally, Sween noted that Gov. Greg Abbott has the authority to issue a one-time 30-day stay of execution."

———————————————————————————

PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "If Texas goes through with Roberson’s execution, he will become the first person in the United States put to death based on a shaken baby syndrome diagnosis. “Mr. Roberson is actually innocent,” Sween said. “If he is executed, despite the overwhelming evidence of his innocence, Texas will commit an extreme miscarriage of justice.”

------------------------------------------------------------------------

STORY: "Texas death row inmate Robert Roberson will not seek clemency ahead of October execution,"  The Texas Tribune reports (Reporter Kayla Guo)  on September 24, 2025. (Kayla Guo covers state politics and government. Before joining the Tribune, she covered Congress for The New York Times as a reporting fellow based in Washington, D.C.)

SUB-HEADING: "Roberson, convicted of capital murder in 2003 for the death of his 2-year-old daughter, will continue to push for a new trial. He has maintained his innocence."

GIST: "Texas death row inmate Robert Roberson will not petition for clemency ahead of his scheduled execution in three weeks and will instead focus on obtaining a new trial in his capital murder conviction, his lawyer said Wednesday.

Roberson was convicted in 2003 for the death of his 2-year-old daughter, Nikki, who was diagnosed with shaken baby syndrome. Roberson has maintained his innocence over the two decades he has spent on death row, arguing that scientific evidence developed since his conviction invalidates Nikki’s diagnosis and shows that she died from chronic illness — not from being shaken so violently that she died, as prosecutors claimed at Roberson’s trial.

Roberson, 58, is scheduled to be executed on Oct. 16. His deadline to submit an application for clemency with the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles is Thursday, 21 days before his execution date.

Under Texas law, a majority of the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles must recommend clemency before the governor may grant it. Clemency in a capital case could mean a commutation of the sentence to life in prison and a reprieve of the execution, but would not affect the conviction.

Roberson’s application for clemency last year was denied by the board the day before he was set to be executed. His execution was then delayed by the Texas Supreme Court after a bipartisan group of state lawmakers undertook an extraordinary campaign to buy him more time — setting off a bitter political battle between members of the Texas House, who have pushed for a new trial, and Attorney General Ken Paxton, whose office now represents the state in opposing Roberson’s appeals.

In a statement, Gretchen Sween, Roberson’s lawyer, said that she advised Roberson not to apply for clemency again because it would offer a “grossly inadequate remedy.”

“A commutation of sentence is not justice for an innocent man who was wrongfully convicted of a crime that never occurred,” she said. “Relief for Mr. Roberson must come from the courts.”

Sween added that the board rejected Roberson’s application for clemency last year “without a hearing and without any explanation,” making it “impossible to discern what kind of information might be persuasive.”

“It is difficult to imagine a more robustly supported application than the one submitted for Mr. Roberson last year,” she said, adding that clemency would not “allow for the long overdue assessment of the objective medical evidence” in Roberson’s case and would ”only divert precious time and resources from the fundamental mission: obtaining a new trial for Robert at long last.”

Roberson filed a new appeal in August, citing new evidence brought to his legal team in June and claiming the judiciary in Anderson County — where he was convicted — acted unconstitutionally multiple times in his case.

His petition claims that Nikki was taken off life support at the direction of her grandparents — despite Roberson being her sole conservator — only after representatives of the Anderson County Judiciary falsely told hospital staff that the couple was Nikki’s legal conservators. Roberson was arrested for capital murder after Nikki died.

The filing also suggests that then-3rd District Court Judge Jerry Calhoon was improperly involved in the case and signed off on an order to provide Roberson’s legal counsel despite his son, Mark Calhoon, being a prosecutor in Roberson’s trial. The former judge did not preside over the trial.

Roberson also has an outstanding appeal at the Court of Criminal Appeals, Texas’ highest criminal court, presenting additional expert opinions finding that Nikki’s shaken baby diagnosis was unsound and that the autopsy ruling her death a homicide was flawed. That appeal also highlights the court’s decision in October 2024 to overturn the shaken baby conviction of a Dallas man.

Additionally, Sween noted that Gov. Greg Abbott has the authority to issue a one-time 30-day stay of execution.

In response to Roberson’s previous appeals, the state has maintained that the evidence backing his conviction still stands. Prosecutors have also sought to downplay the centrality of Nikki’s shaken baby diagnosis in his trial.

If Texas goes through with Roberson’s execution, he will become the first person in the United States put to death based on a shaken baby syndrome diagnosis.

“Mr. Roberson is actually innocent,” Sween said. “If he is executed, despite the overwhelming evidence of his innocence, Texas will commit an extreme miscarriage of justice.”:

The entire story can be read at:

https://www.texastribune.org/2025/09/24/robert-roberson-death-row-clemency-execution-new-trial/


PUBLISHER'S NOTE:  I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic"  section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com.  Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog.

SEE BREAKDOWN OF  SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG,  AT THE LINK BELOW:  HL:


https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985


———————————————————————————————

FINAL WORD:  (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases):  "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."

Lawyer Radha Natarajan:

Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;


—————————————————————————————————


FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions.   They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!


Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;


----------------------------------------------------------

September 25: Linda Stanley: Denver, Colorado: Following up: Her disbarment for serious ethical violations she made while prosecuting multiple high-profile cases, including (Barry Morphew and others covered by this Blog) has been upheld by Colorado's Supreme Court. (And that's a good thing - she was a really loose canon - one of criminal justice''s worst nightmares! HL): Reporter Sadie Buggle: KRDO: "Shortly after the beginning of her term, Stanley's office charged Barry Morphew with murdering his wife, Suzanne Morphew, following her disappearance in May 2020. Stanley made several controversial public statements about the Morphew case while it was still pending, which a board found violated a Colorado law that prohibits prosecutors from making statements likely to heighten “public condemnation of the accused.” In their ruling, the Colorado Supreme Court also found that Stanley abused her position by launching an internal investigation into former Fremont County District Judge Ramsey Lama after he issued rulings in the Morphew case that were unfavorable to her office. According to records previously obtained by KRDO13, Stanley had elicited an investigator's help looking into Lama for alleged domestic violence – claims that were unsubstantiated. Her office ultimately dropped the Morphew case days later, just before it went to trial."


QUOTE OF THE DAY: “Stanley abused her position as elected DA, seriously impeding the rights of defendants, the right to justice for alleged victims, and the right of Coloradans to adjudicate the guilt or innocence of alleged perpetrators of serious crime,” the court's Sept. 8 opinion read in part.

-------------------------------------

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "In May 2023, Stanley drew criticism for another case after making disparaging comments during an on-the-record interview with KRDO13 about the still-pending case of William Henry Jacobs, a man accused of killing a baby in his care. “I’m going to be very blunt here. He has zero investment in this child. Zero. He’s watching that baby so he can get laid,” Stanley said. The comments she made in the interview led to the case against Jacobs and the child's mother being dismissed less than a year later over what the state deemed was "outrageous government conduct."

——————————————————————————

PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "Stanley was disbarred in September 2024 following a state ethics case. A lawsuit from Chaffee, Fremont, and Custer Counties followed in December, accusing her of using taxpayer money to pay her own legal fees."

-----------------------------------------------------------

STORY: "Supreme Co Colorado urt upholds disbarment of former DA Linda Stanley," by Reporter Sadie Buggle, published by KRDO, on September 9, 2025.  (Sadie Buggle Sadie has been a digital and TV news producer at KRDO13 since June 2024. She produces the station’s daily noon show and writes digital articles covering politics, law, crime, and uplifting local stories.


GIST:  "A divided Colorado Supreme Court voted 4-2 on Monday to uphold the disbarment of former District Attorney (DA) Linda Stanley based on serious ethical violations she made while prosecuting multiple high-profile cases.

In their ruling, the justices upheld most of the findings previously made against Stanley, concluding that her misconduct did indeed warrant her disbarment.

Stanley was elected in 2020 to serve as the DA for Colorado's 11th Judicial District, which includes Fremont, Chaffee, and Custer counties. She served just one term before she was disbarred following multiple instances of ethics violations.

Shortly after the beginning of her term, Stanley's office charged Barry Morphew with murdering his wife, Suzanne Morphew, following her disappearance in May 2020.

Stanley made several controversial public statements about the Morphew case while it was still pending, which a board found violated a Colorado law that prohibits prosecutors from making statements likely to heighten “public condemnation of the accused.”

In their ruling, the Colorado Supreme Court also found that Stanley abused her position by launching an internal investigation into former Fremont County District Judge Ramsey Lama after he issued rulings in the Morphew case that were unfavorable to her office.


According to records previously obtained by KRDO13, Stanley had elicited an investigator's help looking into Lama for alleged domestic violence – claims that were unsubstantiated. Her office ultimately dropped the Morphew case days later, just before it went to trial.

In May 2023, Stanley drew criticism for another case after making disparaging comments during an on-the-record interview with KRDO13 about the still-pending case of William Henry Jacobs, a man accused of killing a baby in his care.

“I’m going to be very blunt here. He has zero investment in this child. Zero. He’s watching that baby so he can get laid,” Stanley said.


The comments she made in the interview led to the case against Jacobs and the child's mother being dismissed less than a year later over what the state deemed was "outrageous government conduct."

Stanley was disbarred in September 2024 following a state ethics case. A lawsuit from Chaffee, Fremont, and Custer Counties followed in December, accusing her of using taxpayer money to pay her own legal fees.


In its Sept. 8 opinion, Colorado Supreme Court doubled down on previous board findings, ruling that her misconduct in the cases was enough to warrant her disbarment.

“Stanley abused her position as elected DA, seriously impeding the rights of defendants, the right to justice for alleged victims, and the right of Coloradans to adjudicate the guilt or innocence of alleged perpetrators of serious crime,” the court's Sept. 8 opinion read in part.

However, one allegation, which accused Stanley of failing to adequately supervise her team, was reversed after the court found her shortcomings didn't meet the threshold for an ethical violation.


The entire story can be read at: 


https://krdo.com/news/2025/09/09/colorado-supreme-court-upholds-disbarment-of-former-da-linda-stanley/

-------------------------------------

Read the court's full opinion here.


——————————————


PUBLISHER'S NOTE:  I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic"  section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com.  Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog.

SEE BREAKDOWN OF  SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG,  AT THE LINK BELOW:  HL:


https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985


———————————————————————————————

FINAL WORD:  (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases):  "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."

Lawyer Radha Natarajan:

Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;


—————————————————————————————————


FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions.   They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!


Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;


----------------------------------------------------------

Wednesday, September 24, 2025

September 24: Technology: (Gone terribly wrong!): From our 'read this and tremble' department: 'The Policy Circle Bureau' demonstrates how democracies risk sliding into surveillance states, noting that: "Today, with artificial intelligence, predictive policing, and ubiquitous social media platforms, democracies risk becoming surveillance states not through overt authoritarian decrees but through invisible digital architectures. What was once the work of secret police and wiretaps is now executed by algorithms that monitor behaviour, track movements, and predict intent."


PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "This pattern is not unique to America. In the United Kingdom, police have deployed facial recognition at protests, prompting civil liberties concerns. In France, counter-terrorism laws have enabled extensive digital monitoring, while in Australia, metadata retention laws compel telecom providers to store citizens’ communications records for law enforcement. In each case, liberal democracies are adopting tools once associated with authoritarian states, justified in the name of efficiency and security."

---------------------------------

COMMENTARY: "Democracies risk sliding into surveillance states," published by The Policy Circle Bureau, on September 5, 2025. (Policy Circle is a digital platform that offers in-depth coverage of public policy issues in governance, environment, and society. It was launched in 2020 by a group of policy experts who share a vision of promoting evidence-based policymaking and constructive policy dialogue. It also organises summits, roundtables, and online discussions to bring together policymakers, researchers, corporate executives, professionals, and other stakeholders to deliberate on policy issues. It looks to bridge the gap between research and policy outcomes by facilitating dialogue among policy actors. It seeks to improve the quality of public policy discourse and decision making."

GIST: "Democracies worldwide are embracing AI and data tools that threaten to erode privacy and liberty in the name of security.

George Orwell’s 1984 once read like dystopian fiction. 

Today, with artificial intelligence, predictive policing, and ubiquitous social media platforms, democracies risk becoming surveillance states not through overt authoritarian decrees but through invisible digital architectures. 

What was once the work of secret police and wiretaps is now executed by algorithms that monitor behaviour, track movements, and predict intent. 

The paradox is stark: societies that celebrate liberty and privacy are constructing vast systems of control that echo Orwell’s nightmare, only with machine precision.

The controversy surrounding Palantir in the United States is emblematic of a larger global trend.

 Reports alleged that the company’s Foundry platform was used by federal agencies to consolidate data on citizens — charges the firm denied. Regardless of the veracity, the debate highlighted the uneasy fusion of private technology with state power.

This pattern is not unique to America. In the United Kingdom, police have deployed facial recognition at protests, prompting civil liberties concerns.

 In France, counter-terrorism laws have enabled extensive digital monitoring, while in Australia, metadata retention laws compel telecom providers to store citizens’ communications records for law enforcement.

 In each case, liberal democracies are adopting tools once associated with authoritarian states, justified in the name of efficiency and security.

AI-driven policing: Promise and peril

India provides a cautionary example. 

The Delhi government has installed nearly 280,000 cameras, with thousands more planned. 

States like Andhra Pradesh are preparing to deploy artificial intelligence in every police station. 

Supporters hail these steps as a triumph of smart governance and crime prevention.

 Yet studies, including those by the Internet Freedom Foundation, show that such tools are riddled with bias and rarely audited for fairness.

Facial recognition technologies in particular reveal troubling error rates: almost negligible for light-skinned men but alarmingly high for dark-skinned women. 

Predictive policing algorithms, trained on flawed historical data, risk reinforcing systemic biases and unfairly targeting marginalised communities. 

Social media monitoring, meanwhile, allows authorities to label citizens as potential offenders without due process.

The result is a creeping normalisation of suspicion — an environment where liberty is subordinated to efficiency, and where the citizen is no longer presumed innocent but algorithmically profiled as a risk.

Constitutional dilemmas and legal vacuums

The Supreme Court of India, in the landmark Puttaswamy judgment (2017), affirmed privacy as intrinsic to the right to life and liberty. 

It laid down a three-part test for state surveillance: legality, legitimate aim, and proportionality. 

Yet the rapid deployment of AI-driven policing routinely bypasses these safeguards.

Automated facial recognition systems operate without statutory authority.

 Social media monitoring has no framework for judicial oversight. 

Predictive policing tools function in secrecy, shielded from independent audits. 

India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act (2023) is still not operational, leaving citizens exposed to unchecked data harvesting.

Other democracies grapple with similar challenges. In the United States, cities such as San Francisco and Boston have banned police use of facial recognition due to concerns of racial bias. 

The European Union’s AI Act (2023) goes further, classifying real-time facial recognition in public spaces as high-risk and banning it except in narrowly defined cases.

 India, by contrast, continues to expand surveillance without comparable regulatory guardrails.

Social media: The invisible panopticon

While state surveillance often attracts attention, an equally insidious form is built into social media platforms. 

Companies like Meta, X, and TikTok harvest vast troves of behavioural data, ostensibly for targeted advertising. 

Yet the same data is increasingly shared with governments for law enforcement and national security.

Algorithms that curate feeds also monitor dissent, amplify polarisation, and enable the mapping of social networks at unprecedented scale. 

The Cambridge Analytica scandal showed how microtargeted manipulation can distort elections.

 In Brazil, WhatsApp forwards have been used to track and influence voter behaviour. 

In the Philippines, state agencies have worked with platforms to monitor activists and journalists. 

The convergence of corporate data collection with state surveillance ambitions creates a digital panopticon, where every click, like, and post may become evidence in a future investigation.

What was once a tool for free expression is now a reservoir of surveillance, feeding both corporate profits and government control.

Security without liberty is hollow

The defence of these technologies rests on a familiar refrain: they enhance safety. 

Proponents argue that predictive policing deters crime, that facial recognition captures fugitives, and that social media monitoring prevents terrorism.

 But such claims ignore the constitutional truth: rights exist precisely to limit the excesses of state power, even in the pursuit of security.

Mass surveillance chills dissent, undermines free speech, and corrodes the trust between citizen and state. 

A democracy that accepts permanent surveillance in exchange for ephemeral safety risks hollowing out its core values. 

Security without liberty is indistinguishable from authoritarian rule.

The path forward requires urgent reform. India—and other democracies—must:

Legislate clear limits: Surveillance must be backed by explicit laws subject to parliamentary debate, not executive orders or agency contracts.

Ensure judicial oversight: Any intrusive surveillance should require prior approval from independent authorities, as mandated for telephone tapping in PUCL v. Union of India (1997).

Mandate algorithmic transparency: Governments must disclose the logic, training data, and error rates of AI systems used in policing.

Enforce accountability: Independent audits, data minimisation, and time-bound destruction of non-relevant data should be mandatory.

Adopt best practices: India should learn from the EU AI Act’s precautionary approach, enacting moratoriums on high-risk technologies until safeguards are in place.

Without such reforms, democracies will drift into becoming surveillance states by stealth, not decree. 

Orwell’s telescreens have been replaced by cameras, sensors, and algorithms. 

The danger is no less real.

 The challenge for our times is to preserve liberty in the face of efficiency, and to ensure that technology serves democracy rather than subverts it.

The entire commentary can be read at:

 https://www.policycircle.org/society/democracies-surveillance-states-ai/

  • PUBLISHER'S NOTE:  I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic"  section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com.  Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog.

    SEE BREAKDOWN OF  SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG,  AT THE LINK BELOW:  HL:


    https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985


    ———————————————————————————————

    FINAL WORD:  (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases):  "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."

    Lawyer Radha Natarajan:

    Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;


    —————————————————————————————————


    FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions.   They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!


    Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;


    ----------------------------------------------------------