Ex Parte Andrew Wayne Roark, Applicant

Andrew Wayne Roark (defendant) was convicted of injury to a child based on a theory of shaken baby syndrome (SBS). At trial, the state argued that he had injured the infant victim by violently shaking her. Roark contended that the victim’s injuries were from a previous subdural hematoma that began bleeding again. After Roark was convicted, the scientific consensus on SBS began to shift. In 2015, a journal article reviewing the existing literature found no proof that shaking alone, without an associated impact, could cause a subdural hematoma. Scientists largely abandoned the term “shaken baby syndrome” in favor of vaguer terms like “impact syndrome” and “abusive head trauma.” Several of the state’s experts who testified at Roark’s trial shifted their opinions. Dr. Rollins, who had testified that the victim’s injuries were “absolutely” consistent with SBS, later agreed that shaking was insufficient. At trial, Dr. Squires had testified that the victim could not have caused the injury herself, that her retinal hemorrhaging could only have been caused by shaking, and that her injury occurred between the time of her initial primary-care appointment and the emergency-room arrival. However, Dr. Cox and Dr. Galaznik later testified that a simple fall could have caused the injury, that the retinal hemorrhaging was not what would be expected from shaking, and that the time of the injury could not be pinpointed. Dr. Squires later recanted her testimony regarding subdural hematoma rebleeds. A lower court recommended that Roark’s request to vacate his conviction be granted. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted review.