A House committee hearing about Robert Roberson III ended Monday without his highly anticipated testimony, but lawmakers embarked on a marathon session that lasted well into the night.

Committee members vowed Monday to hear from the death row inmate himself at a later date — even if they have to travel to prison to see him.

The state House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee intended for Roberson, an East Texas man convicted in 2003 of killing his 2-year-old daughter, to appear in person at the Texas Capitol, but objections from the attorney general’s office derailed the lawmakers’ plans.

“We’re in the process of working out in-person testimony, collaboratively, perhaps by the committee going to Robert instead of him coming to us, which is something we’re fleshing out right now,” Rep. Joe Moody, D-El Paso, said at the conclusion of the hearing. “Under the authority granted to and exercised by this committee under state law and house rules, our expectation is still that we’re going to hear Robert and that’s going to be the next step for this committee.”

Roberson, 57, was scheduled to be executed last Thursday by lethal injection in Huntsville until a novel move by the committee spared his life.

Members of the committee voted 7-0 Wednesday to subpoena Roberson and ordered him to testify four days after his execution date. That set off a series of appeals and rulings in state courts, with the Texas Supreme Court ultimately ruling Thursday night to halt the execution and bar state corrections officials from impeding Roberson’s ability to comply with the subpoena.

The hearing was set to explore the state’s 2013 “junk science” law allowing people to challenge convictions with new science. Roberson’s testimony is needed to gauge how the law was applied in his case, state Rep. Jeff Leach, a Plano Republican and one of the architects of the subpoena, has said.

9:45 p.m.: Hearing concludes with testimony from one of Roberson’s attorneys

The nine-hour hearing concluded with testimony from Roberson’s attorney, Gretchen Sween, who fielded lawmakers’ questions about whether Roberson posed a security risk — a concern raised by the attorney general in court records.

Sween said she spoke with Bobby Lumpkin, the head of TDCJ’s correctional institutions division, Friday morning. She recalled Lumpkin telling her the department was arranging for Roberson to testify in person in accordance with the subpoena.

Lumpkin offered to get Roberson street clothes to wear during the testimony, she said.

“I almost lost it,” Sween said. “I was so moved by this gesture from the head of the correctional division.”

Sween said she didn’t learn about the attorney general’s safety concerns regarding bringing Roberson to the Capitol until she saw social media posts on Saturday evening. She said there was “zero” chance TDCJ officials shared these concerns, as evidenced by their initial stated commitment to comply with the subpoena.

Spokespeople with TDCJ did not respond to emailed requests for comment Monday.

Sween answered questions from lawmakers about how she thought the prosecutors, medical officials, and the convicting court had erred in the years since Roberson was convicted.

“There was bad science, a lot of missed bits of evidence in a tragedy and really bad prejudgment of a guy with a disability. That’s what happened,” Sween said. “But today, we know so much more, but none of that has been acknowledged, which is why we’re still here litigating whether he should get a new trial.”

-Chase Rogers

8:00 p.m.: Roberson’s autism explains concerns about his demeanor, psychologist says

Natalie Montfort, a Houston psychologist, said although she hasn’t personally assessed Roberson, she has reviewed records related to his late-age autism diagnosis in 2018. She said the 2003 trial record shows Roberson’s demeanor, which was described as “odd, uncaring, and unemotional,” was the result of his then-undiagnosed autism and likely played a role in his conviction.

One example, she said, was how Roberson had changed Nikki’s clothing before taking her to the hospital. While this could be perceived as someone “trying to make a bad situation look better,” she said, it could have been that Roberson was falling back into his usual routines due to his diagnosis.

“It’s not an indicator of guilt, not an indicator of lack of caring, lack of concern, not even an indicator of inattention,” Montfort said of autism diagnoses generally. “They could be listening very well and engaging in a repetitive behavior that’s calming and self-soothing.”

Montfort also echoed concerns about the death row inmate’s ability to testify using teleconference technology.

-Chase Rogers

7:30 p.m.: Director of legal forensics center says new trial merited

Robert Roberson deserves a new trial, said Katherine Judson, executive director of the Center for Integrity in Forensic Sciences, based in Madison, Wisconsin.

Judson spoke at length about “shaken baby syndrome” via video testimony Monday evening and said the now-discredited theory was an “essential” part of the case against Roberson.

The Texas attorney general’s office has said blunt-force trauma, not shaken baby syndrome, was the cause of his daughter’s death. Judson disagreed.

“I cannot think of a way to divorce the shaking part from these other claims,” she said. “They’re so inextricably linked, it just requires a new trial.”

-Aarón Torres

6:30 p.m.: Roberson had no say in life support decision, attorney says

Attorney Donald P. Salzman, who has done pro bono work on death penalty cases for the National Innocence Project and reviewed the Roberson case, told committee members that the jury was not given an accurate view of her condition when she was brought in to the hospital in Palestine by her father that night.

Nikki’s bleeding disorder meant that bruises that were initially discussed in trial were likely inflicted, at least in part, by medical treatments she was receiving that night and not by Roberson as prosecutors initially alleged, he said. Much of the bruising showed up many hours after she arrived, he said.

There was no record of what treatment she was getting while she was being transported to Dallas Children’s Hospital from Palestine so it’s impossible to know for sure if some of the bruising happened during that time, Salzman said.

He also said that Nikki was taken off life support without her father’s permission — even though Roberson’s parental rights had not been terminated, a point that committee members appeared to find particularly appalling.

”Everybody getting that?” Leach said. “We’ve got the removal of life support at Dallas Children’s, for which Mr. Roberson, her father who rushed her to the emergency room in Palestine, was given no say, no permission.”

He also testified that jurors are highly sensitive to claims of sexual abuse, and that it can sway them even if it’s never proven. Salzman noted that the specter of such abuse was brought up by prosecutors during jury selection, as well as during opening and closing arguments — but that a jury was not asked to determine the truth of that allegation and Roberson was never proven in court to have sexually abused his child.

”Has there ever been a scintilla of evidence to support that claim?” asked state Rep. Brian Harrison, R-Midlothian, a member of the committee.

”Absolutely not,” Salzman said.

Salzman said no jury has ever heard testimony by experts that Nikki’s death was actually caused by pneumonia and that her health problems were exacerbated by medications that made it difficult for her to breathe, all of which indicates that she died from natural causes, not homicide, he said.

”We’ve now established beyond a shadow of a doubt that the jury did not have all relevant medical and scientific evidence that should have come to that courtroom,” Harrison said.

-Karen Brooks Harper

6 p.m.: Former criminal appeals judge offers suggestions to improve post-conviction relief process

Elsa Alcala, a former judge with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, thanked the committee for its move to subpoena Roberson last week. She said while the move was “peculiar,” it was “greatly appreciated by those of us who are so committed to the cause of innocence.”

Alcala said she was frustrated by her fellow court members’ application of the “junk science” law during her time on the court, and offered several suggestions to improve the system. Those included: lowering the number of judges required to stay an execution, lowering the burden of proof to grant a new trial under the “junk science” law, waiving process issues for post-conviction relief and ensuring convicted people get counsel in post-conviction relief cases.

Alcala also had sharp words for the criminal appeals court, saying it is overly focused on technicalities and has a much lower reverse rate on capital punishment than other states. She pointed out Texas is one of the only states with two high courts, and said the system could be improved by consolidating them.

”I believe the criminal specialization has turned the court into a body that’s really lost its common sense,” Alcala said.

Rep. Jeff Leach, R-Plano, also asked Alcala about the options available to Roberson moving forward. She noted three of the nine judges on the court lost their primaries and will not be returning in 2025, meaning the court could rule differently on Roberson’s motions in the future.

-Julia James

4:25 p.m.: Author John Grisham pushes for new Roberson trial

John Grisham, the prolific author of dozens of legal thrillers who is affiliated with the Innocence Project, praised the lawmakers on the House panel for “literally” saving Roberson’s life last week by issuing a subpoena that temporarily halted his execution.

“You took a bold stance against injustice at the precise moment when the courts and the leaders of the state seemed hell bent on executing Robert — if not for you Robert would be in his grave today,” Grisham said Monday afternoon.

Grisham, a Democratic member of the Mississippi House from 1983-90 and a criminal defense attorney for a decade, told the committee that he believes Roberson did not have a fair trial because his 2003 conviction was based on “shaken baby syndrome,” a theory that has since been debunked.

“Robert’s trial was grossly unfair,” Grisham said, testifying via video. “The science was terrible. The science has been debunked and discredited and disproven now for the past 15 years — we know it’s bad science.”

Asked by Rep. Jeff Leach, R-Plano, if a new trial would be the “only right option” for Roberson, Grisham agreed.

“When you have a case like this, where the science is just wrong, it was wrong 30, 40, 50 years ago when it was first developed, sure, you have to go back to a fair trial,” he said.

-Aarón Torres

3:48 p.m.: Jury member who voted to convict Roberson testifies

Terre Compton, a Palestine resident and member of the jury that convicted Roberson in 2003, said the state’s case against Roberson then was focused on “shaken baby syndrome.”

Compton said at one point during the trial, prosecutors shook a baby toy to demonstrate what the violent shaking would look like.

She did not recall the jury discussing whether Nikki was beaten, hit, abused or severely sick. If Compton knew of other circumstances surrounding his daughter’s death, she said she would have voted “not guilty.”

Compton said after reading more about the case as Roberson’s execution date approached, she now believes Roberson is innocent.

-Lana Ferguson

2:34 p.m.: Lawmakers’ actions show ‘how extreme the stakes are’

The actions by the committee’s lawmakers are unprecedented but represent “how extreme the stakes are for the criminal legal system” the committee oversees, said Benjamin Wolff, the director of the state Office of Capital and Forensic Writs.

Wolff’s office, which acts as the state public defender’s office representing people on death row in post-conviction appeals, has represented Roberson before, including when his first execution date in 2016 was stayed.

In 2016, the Court of Criminal Appeals — the state’s highest criminal court — halted the execution so his attorneys could present new medical evidence under the state’s 2013 “junk science” law. The high court, on subsequent appeals, has not intervened since and had reaffirmed plans to execute Roberson on Oct. 17.

“When it passed Article 11.073, the Legislature intended that it be a vehicle for both incarcerated persons and those sentenced to death to challenge the use of flawed forensic science in their cases. Since the law has been on the books, however, a death-sentenced person has yet to be granted relief under this law,” Wolff said in a statement.

He later added: “I would respectfully suggest that death penalty cases are not somehow free of flawed forensic science in ways non-capital cases are not.”

Sween, one of Roberson’s attorneys, was employed by the office in 2016. Two years later, she took Roberson’s case with her pro bono as she went into private practice, Wolff said.

-Chase Rogers

1:23 p.m.: Dr. Phil testifies before House committee

Phillip McGraw, known as “Dr. Phil” on the talk show he hosted for 21 seasons, was the first to testify Monday afternoon and said he “100%” does not believe Roberson had a fair trial.

He said there are instances where the death penalty is appropriate, such as for the men convicted in the murder of James Byrd Jr., but that if the state gets this case wrong it could call the whole institution into question.

McGraw reiterated points made by other experts and attorneys that the original trial was too narrowly focused on the prevailing science at the time of “shaken baby syndrome,” a theory of abuse that has since come into question. He emphasized other causes of Nikki’s death, including chronic illness from birth, medications that are no longer given to children and severe pneumonia.

“Sometimes we forget that the goal of prosecution is to seek justice, not conviction,” he said.

McGraw has said he believes Roberson is innocent and interviewed him before his execution originally scheduled for Oct. 17.

“I know there’s some tension between the different branches of the Texas government here, and I hope they come together and find some way to do the right thing,” McGraw told reporters after his testimony.

-Julia James

1:10 p.m.: Witness list includes Dr. Phil, John Grisham, former appeals court judge

According to the committee, more than half a dozen witnesses were expected to testify Monday.

Among the witnesses mentioned were daytime TV host “Dr. Phil” McGraw, author and Innocence Project board member John Grisham and Roberson’s attorney Gretchen Sween.

Others to be called Monday were Elsa Alcala, former Republican judge on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals; Kate Judson, executive director of the Center for Integrity in Forensic Sciences; and clinical psychologist Natalie Montfort.

-Lana Ferguson

12:45 p.m.: Committee does not believe Roberson’s testimony will happen Monday

At the start of the hearing, Rep. Joe Moody, D-El Paso, said he does “not believe” Roberson will testify Monday.

“Our committee simply cannot agree to video conference,” he said. “That doesn’t mean Robert won’t testify at all.”

Moody said the committee is working with the attorney general’s office to figure out a way for Roberson to testify in person at another time.

-Jamie Landers and Lana Ferguson

12:34 p.m.: Hearing scheduled for noon has yet to begin

Only three of the committee’s nine members and its clerk were on the dais as the public waited for the hearing to begin.

About 30 minutes into a delay, all three committee members exited the room.

-Nolan D. McCaskill

11:50 a.m.: Roberson’s family members arrive at Austin hearing

Members of Roberson’s family, including a nephew who was born after Roberson was sentenced to death, arrived outside the Texas Capitol hearing room just before 11 a.m. Monday.

“I’m here to support Robert and the rest of the family,” said Nicholas Featherston, 21, of Bullard. “I never got the chance to meet him.”

Featherston, who said he has demonstrated on behalf of his uncle in front of the Polunsky Unit in Livingston, said he was concerned about the uncertainty surrounding Monday’s proceedings. ”Everything about the whole situation” – from the original accusations to state leaders fighting over whether he should be brought to Austin to testify – makes him angry, he said.

Support from the public, however, has been very welcome: “My family really appreciates it.”

Featherston said he’s glad the sentence was delayed but “it’s not what I was hoping.”

“I just don’t want him executed,” Featherston said. “If they want to give him life without parole or whatever, at least they won’t execute him, but he didn’t do anything wrong so I just want him to go free.”

Shortly before the hearing began, the committee room was filled to capacity with more than 100 spectators and media, with about a dozen people waiting in line to enter if space opened up. An overflow room with video of the hearing held a handful of spectators.

-Karen Brooks Harper

11:25 a.m.: Abbott’s office says lawmakers ‘stepped out of line’

Gov. Greg Abbott urged the Texas Supreme Court to toss out the subpoena ordering Roberson to testify, saying the lawmakers “stepped out of line.”

The three-page letter sent Sunday by James Sullivan, Abbott’s general counsel, said only Abbott has the constitutional authority to delay an execution. Sullivan warned that unless the court rejects the subpoena, “it can be repeated in every capital case, effectively rewriting the Constitution to reassign a power given only to the Governor.”

Abbott’s letter was the first time the governor has commented on the House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence’s use of a subpoena as a tactic to stop Roberson’s execution. Dozens of Republican and Democratic lawmakers believe he has legitimate innocence claims.

In its letter to the court, Abbott’s office said the Texas Constitution grants him — not a legislative committee — the power to halt an execution.

“If the House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence thinks itself entitled to testimony from a criminal on death row, a point which is not conceded, it should have done so without erasing the authority given exclusively to the governor,” Sullivan wrote.

-Aarón Torres

10 a.m.: Testimony details unclear

As of 10 a.m. Monday, it remained unclear how or if Roberson would testify.

Roberson’s attorney, Gretchen Sween, said Roberson will only testify if he is brought before the committee in person as the subpoena required.

When asked if Roberson would make an appearance at the Capitol, Rep. Joe Moody, the El Paso Democrat who chairs the Texas House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence, told The Dallas Morning News: “I do not know the answer.”

“There is a valid subpoena for him to appear in person today,” Moody said. “I’m attempting to work with the other branch to work this out.”

-Jamie Landers