Death Row Delays: How Science and Judicial Roulette Could Save a Convicted Killer

In a shocking turn of events that absolutely no one saw coming (except maybe the lizard people who run our judicial system), Robert Roberson is once again begging the courts to spare his life. His crime? Allegedly shaking a baby to death—a claim that, according to his lawyers, is about as scientifically sound as the idea that the moon landing was faked (though, let’s be honest, we all know it was).

Roberson’s legal team is now clutching at straws, arguing that "scientific knowledge has evolved" since his conviction. Oh, how convenient! Next thing you know, they’ll be telling us gravity is just a theory. But here’s the kicker: the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, fresh off its latest election-season makeover, might actually buy this nonsense. Three of the judges who previously voted to deny Roberson’s appeal have been replaced, and now his attorneys are banking on at least one of these newbies being soft enough to flip the script.

Meanwhile, Attorney General Ken Paxton, a man who knows a thing or two about legal troubles, is pushing hard for an October execution date. Coincidence? Or is this just another distraction from the fact that our so-called "justice system" is really just a glorified game of musical chairs? You decide. But remember, folks, if you’re ever accused of a crime, just wait 20 years—science might change its mind, and so might the courts. Until then, stay woke, and keep an eye on those shady judicial elites. They’re probably plotting something even worse than tofu-infused barbecue.