Rethinking Justice in the Age of Junk Science

By: IPF Interns, Joziah Burnett and Nina Mansilla

The Case of Robert Roberson

On October 9, 2025, just seven days before his scheduled execution, a pivotal development occurred in the case of Robert Roberson. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals issued Roberson a stay of execution, a legal order that suspends the enforcement of a judicial sentence. This stay halted what would have been an irreversible action and marked the third time that judicial intervention has blocked Roberson’s execution.

The continued need for stays of execution underscores both the systemic flaws surrounding his original conviction and the persistence of his legal team. In 2003, the Texas father was convicted and sentenced to death for the death of his two-year-old daughter, Nikki Roberson. Prosecutors claimed that Nikki’s brain swelling and hemorrhages were caused by shaken baby syndrome (SBS), a diagnosis based on a triad of symptoms: brain swelling, retinal bleeding, and subdural hemorrhage (Davies).

Medical experts at trial testified that these symptoms could only occur through violent shaking, leading the jury to convict. However, the court failed to adequately consider that Nikki had been severely ill in the days before her death, suffering from a high fever (104.5°F), coughing, and wheezing. Doctors had prescribed codeine and Phenergan, medications that suppress breathing and could have contributed to her condition. Additionally, Roberson’s undiagnosed autism at the time explained his flat emotional demeanor, which prosecutors used to portray him as uncaring and guilty.

Robert Roberson sits for an interview with CNN on Wednesday, October 8, at the Allan B. Polunsky Unit, one day before he received a stay. Ashley Killough/CNN via CNN Newsource

The Case of Stephanie Spurgeon

In the same way that Robert Roberson’s case exposes the dangers of flawed science, Stephanie Spurgeon’s story illustrates how easily lives can be upended by the misuse of medical testimony presented as absolute truth. In 2008, Stephanie, a respected Florida daycare provider and mother of two, was convicted for the death of an infant, Maria Harris, who became unresponsive after being in her care for one eight hour day. The child was hospitalized with brain hemorrhages, cerebral edema, seizures, and retinal bleeding, but there were no external signs of trauma.

Prosecutors argued that Stephanie had thrown the baby onto a soft surface, causing fatal head trauma. This theory relied heavily on the same “triad” of symptoms, brain swelling, bleeding, and subdural hematoma, that underpinned the discredited shaken baby syndrome. Yet, defense experts later discovered that Maria suffered from venous sinus thrombosis, a rare blood clotting condition that could fully explain her injuries without any evidence of abuse.

After serving eight and a half years in prison, Stephanie was freed with conditions. Despite compelling evidence of her innocence, the state threatened to retry the case, forcing her to confront the possibility of enduring another wrongful conviction. Rather than face the trauma of a second trial and the risk of being unjustly found guilty again, Stephanie accepted the state’s Alford plea in 2021, a legal agreement that allowed her to maintain her innocence while acknowledging that the original evidence might have persuaded a jury otherwise.

Although she is free, the effects of that conviction continue to shape her life. The felony record has limited her personal and professional opportunities, disrupted family relationships, and created ongoing barriers that most people never have to imagine. Her story is a haunting reminder that even well-intentioned science can become junk science when applied without accountability, and that the consequences of wrongful convictions endure long after the courtroom doors close.

Stephanie’s ordeal speaks to a deeper systemic problem, the courtroom’s historical reverence for “expert” testimony, even when the underlying science is incomplete or misapplied. Like Robert Roberson, she was not just fighting a legal battle, but confronting a flawed system that too often prioritizes conviction over truth.

Today, Stephanie serves as a paralegal with our team, bringing invaluable firsthand experience and empathy to our advocacy. Her insight as a wrongfully convicted person strengthens our mission and grounds our work in lived truth.

What Is Junk Science?

The term “junk science” refers to expert testimony, data, or research considered questionable, unreliable, or unsupported by accepted scientific standards. Reliance on such evidence has been a major driver of wrongful convictions, as both Roberson’s and Spurgeon’s stories demonstrate.

The criminal legal system is built on principles of trust and integrity, yet history shows repeated violations of those values through the misuse of flawed forensic evidence. According to the National Registry of Exonerations (NRE), false or misleading forensic evidence contributed to 29% of exonerations in 2024 alone.

“Junk science” often exhibits one or more of the following traits:

• Lack of Validation: The method or technique has not been properly tested or accepted.

• Overstated Certainty: Experts claim absolute conclusions without acknowledging limitations.

• Subjectivity: The analysis relies on personal judgment rather than objective data.

• Methodological Flaws: The science is outdated, misinterpreted, or poorly designed.

  
  

Conclusion

The stories of Robert Roberson and Stephanie Spurgeon are powerful examples of how junk science undermines justice. Their convictions, both rooted in the now-discredited shaken baby syndrome theory, reveal the devastating human cost of unverified forensic claims. Roberson’s multiple stays of execution and Spurgeon’s eventual release underscore the need for judicial accountability and skepticism toward overconfident expert testimony. Today, Stephanie’s work as a paralegal allows her to turn her wrongful conviction into a force for change, offering critical perspective, compassion, and strength to our mission. Her story reminds us that justice reform is not abstract; it is human. We hope to one day see Robert Roberson free as well, using his own experience as a wrongfully convicted father to serve and strengthen his community.

Both stories remind us of what’s at stake: a justice system that must value truth over conviction and humanity over haste.

References

Davies, D. M. (2024, October 11). Robert Roberson loses appeal to stop Texas from executing him based on debunked “shaken baby syndrome.” TPR. https://www.tpr.org/criminal-justice/2024-10-11/robert-roberson-loses-appeal-to-stop-texas-from-executing-him-based-on-debunked-shaken-baby-syndrome

National Registry of Exonerations. (2024). 2024 annual report. https://exonerationregistry.org/sites/exonerationregistry.org/files/documents/2024_Annual_Report.pdf

Ryskamp, D. A. (2021, February 25). What is considered “junk science” from expert witnesses? Expert Institute. https://www.expertinstitute.com/resources/insights/what-is-considered-junk-science-from-expert-witnesses/

State Bar of Texas. (n.d.). Articles. https://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=articles&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=47776

Innocence Project of Florida. (2020). Stephanie Spurgeon | Innocence Project of Florida | Unlock the truth. https://www.floridainnocence.org/stephanie-spurgeon

Wisotsky, S. (1997). Miscarriages of justice: Their causes and curses. St. Thomas Law Review, 9(3), 547–566. https://scholarship.stu.edu/stlr/vol9/iss3/7