Staring over the top edge of his reading glasses, state Rep. Jeff Leach, R-Plano, furrowed his brow a bit and began questioning the witness. The scene at this special meeting of the Criminal Jurisprudence Committee of the Texas House of Representatives was unlike any other committee hearing I have ever attended, and I have seen many.
The issues addressed at a typical Criminal Jurisprudence Committee hearing are mundane. They involve such matters as codifying minor changes to the Texas penal code, proposing curative reforms to the standard timelines of misdemeanor criminal trials or, at their most controversial, determining whether Texas prisoners will receive cable television or air conditioning.
On this day, however, the committee, led by the passionate advocacy of Leach and chairman Rep. Joe Moody, D-El Paso, was defending the life of a fellow Texan.
The life of Robert Roberson III had been spared from the death penalty a few days prior to the hearing by this committee, which had subpoenaed Roberson’s testimony just hours before his scheduled execution, thus delaying the process. No other person or entity would provide Roberson with relief, or even an opportunity to be heard, including the governor of Texas, the Texas Supreme Court or the U.S. Supreme Court. But for the actions of Moody and Leach, Roberson’s life would have been taken by the state of Texas at 6:00 pm on Oct. 17.
Get smart opinions on the topics North Texans care about.
Or with:
By signing up you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy
Most Texans support capital punishment, including Leach. We are raised to accept that under biblical proscription, the taking of one eye deserves the giving of another. Roberson was accused and convicted not merely of murder, but of the most heinous crime possible: the murder of a child. At his trial in 2003, the jury found beyond a reasonable doubt that Roberson was guilty of violently taking the life of a 2-year old girl, Nikki Curtis.
But like an episode of Perry Mason or CSI, there was much more to this case than meets the eye. This legislative committee believed that the science used to convict Roberson was faulty. Hence, under Texas law, the committee believed that Roberson was entitled to additional due process.
The witness list for the hearing included a well-known television personality, a world-famous novelist, and an actual juror from the original criminal trial of Roberson: Terre Compton.
Compton, a resident of Palestine, Texas, where the death occurred, appeared at this hearing to set the record straight. She, like many others, was heartbroken over the loss of Nikki. Based on the testimony she heard at trial, she voted, without reserve, to convict Roberson of the murder.
In the years following the trial, however, she had ascertained additional facts about the circumstances of Nikki’s death, many of which undermined the state’s case against Roberson. Under delicate, yet deftly revealing questioning from Leach, Compton acknowledged at the hearing that had she been aware at the time of the trial of the information that she had gleaned over the subsequent years, she would never have voted to convict Roberson.
Leach and I were classmates in the Texas House. We campaigned together for our first elected offices, were sworn in on the same date, and tussled more than once over policy. I deeply respect him not only for his dedication to his community, which is a pre-requisite for anyone running for public office, but also for his fealty to the principles that placed him in office in the first place.
Most Texans want to believe that their elected representatives place greater importance on policy than politics. Unfortunately, many of our public servants are more interested in doing what is politically expedient rather than what is best for the community that they represent.
The very first lesson a partisan elected official learns in office is to tread cautiously when diverging, even slightly, from party orthodoxy. Whether it be gun control, abortion, border security or, in this instance, capital punishment, any deviation from the positions set forth in the party platform could be fatal. As someone who was summarily unelected for my own transgressions, I would know.
Leach certainly understands this, but he consistently remains true to the principles he holds in his heart and has always evinced a deep compassion for his fellow Texans. It is no surprise to me, knowing what kind of man he is, that Leach took the courageous stand of championing Roberson’s right to be heard. And as sure as the morning sun rose in the eastern sky today, Leach was attacked by party captains, grassroots advocates, and MAGA extremist online warriors for his earnest advocacy of Roberson’s due process rights.
This was not the first time Leach chose the more difficult path in pursuit of righteousness and justice. He was a floor leader in the Attorney General Ken Paxton saga last summer, and he has a long record of protecting life, either at its beginning or, in this case, at its end. Leach is one of the good guys.
Moody, too, is a capable legislator and a man of principle. He deserves credit for doing the right thing. But his actions are completely in consonance with his party’s orthodoxy. His honor as a statesman is unassailable, but profiles in courage are forged by cutting against the grain, not hewing to the expected path.
I am hopeful that we as Texans will have more opportunities in the future to vote for candidates like Leach and Moody, who choose principle over politics.
Jason Villalba is the CEO of the Texas Hispanic Policy Foundation and a former member of the Texas House.
We welcome your thoughts in a letter to the editor. See the guidelines and submit your letter here. If you have problems with the form, you can submit via email at letters@dallasnews.com
