SHAKEN BABY SYNDROME: WHAT IS THE SYNDROME BEHIND A TEXAS MAN’S POSSIBLE EXECUTION?

This week, Texas could witness the execution of Robert Roberson, who would become the first person in the United States to be executed for a murder conviction tied to shaken baby syndrome (SBS).

Roberson, a 57-year-old man who has spent more than 20 years on death row, was convicted in 2003 of killing his two-year-old daughter, Nikki Curtis. Scheduled for lethal injection on Thursday, October 17, Roberson has consistently maintained his innocence, claiming that his daughter’s death resulted from an undiagnosed illness, not from abuse.

This case brings the controversial diagnosis of shaken baby syndrome back into the national spotlight, with increasing scrutiny from medical experts, legal professionals, and human rights advocates. Roberson’s lawyers argue that his conviction was based on faulty science, pointing to advances in the understanding of SBS over the past two decades. They also highlight how evolving medical research has raised significant doubts about SBS as a reliable forensic tool in child abuse cases. Yet, prosecutors insist that the evidence still supports Roberson’s guilt.

As Roberson’s execution looms, it’s essential to understand the history and controversy surrounding shaken baby syndrome and its impact on criminal cases like his.

What is Shaken Baby Syndrome?

Shaken baby syndrome, sometimes called abusive head trauma (AHT), is a severe form of brain injury caused by violently shaking a baby or young child. According to medical sources like Healthline, SBS can result from as little as five seconds of shaking, leading to a range of catastrophic symptoms, including brain swelling, bleeding around the brain, bleeding in the eyes, seizures, and coma. The syndrome was first introduced as a medical hypothesis in the early 1970s when doctors were trying to explain cases where children exhibited severe internal head trauma without obvious external injuries.

One of the first supporters of the shaken baby hypothesis was Dr. Norman Guthkelch, a British pediatric neurosurgeon who suggested in 1971 that violent shaking could be responsible for the unexplained head injuries he was seeing in infants. The theory gained traction over the next several decades, becoming a widely accepted explanation for child abuse cases where infants or toddlers presented with certain telltale signs, now known as the SBS “triad”: brain swelling (encephalopathy), bleeding on the surface of the brain (subdural hematoma), and bleeding in the eyes (retinal hemorrhages).

However, despite its widespread use, the shaken baby diagnosis has always had its skeptics. Over the years, growing numbers of medical professionals have questioned whether the triad of symptoms can only be caused by shaking. Research has shown that more than 80 different non-violent causes—such as accidental falls, infections, blood clotting disorders, and undiagnosed illnesses—can mimic the symptoms of SBS.

The Shaken Baby Syndrome Controversy

The diagnosis of shaken baby syndrome has not only been scrutinized in the medical community but has also had a profound impact on the legal system. Since the 1990s, thousands of parents and caregivers in the United States have been prosecuted for child abuse or murder based on the SBS diagnosis. As a result, some individuals have been exonerated after courts revisited their cases with new medical evidence.

The National Registry of Exonerations reports that 32 people convicted on the basis of SBS have been cleared since 1993, highlighting the potential for wrongful convictions tied to outdated or incorrect scientific conclusions. The British neurosurgeon Guthkelch, who originally promoted the shaken baby hypothesis, later voiced his concerns that the diagnosis was being misused in courtrooms to convict innocent people.

As more research has emerged about the limitations of SBS as a diagnosis, experts have started calling for more thorough investigations into suspected child abuse cases.

Robert Roberson’s Case: An Unsettling Legal Precedent

Robert Roberson’s case exemplifies the deep concerns surrounding shaken baby syndrome and its use in criminal prosecutions. In 2002, Roberson rushed his two-year-old daughter, Nikki Curtis, to the hospital after she fell out of bed at their home in Palestine, Texas. Nikki had been seriously ill for a week, and Roberson claims her fall caused her to stop breathing. However, medical professionals quickly suspected that Nikki had been violently shaken, leading to a diagnosis of SBS.

At his trial in 2003, experts testified that Nikki’s brain and eye injuries were consistent with shaken baby syndrome, and Roberson was convicted of murder. Yet, in the years since, new medical evidence has emerged that challenges the original diagnosis. Roberson’s lawyers now argue that Nikki died from undiagnosed pneumonia that led to sepsis, a severe infection that can cause rapid deterioration and death. They also claim that medications prescribed to Nikki exacerbated her condition, making it more difficult for her to breathe.

In 2022, a judge reviewed the new evidence, but ultimately dismissed the theory that Nikki died from illness rather than from abuse. Despite this setback, Roberson’s legal team continues to insist that his conviction was based on outdated science. They point out that shaken baby syndrome has come under intense scrutiny in recent years, and argue that the case against Roberson would not hold up if tried today.

A Tense Moment for Justice

As Roberson’s execution date draws closer, advocates for criminal justice reform, wrongful conviction organizations, and forensic scientists are closely watching the case. His case has sparked a renewed conversation about the reliability of forensic science in the courtroom, particularly when the science in question is outdated or incomplete.

While no one disputes the reality of child abuse or the devastating consequences of violent shaking, Roberson’s supporters are fighting for the recognition that he may have been misdiagnosed—and wrongfully convicted.

For Robert Roberson, the question is not whether child abuse exists, but whether he was wrongly accused of it based on faulty evidence. As his final days approach, the larger debate over shaken baby syndrome—and the intersection of science, medicine, and justice—remains as relevant and urgent as ever.