Phil McGraw of TV fame said Roberson’s jury did not get the full picture, that Roberson was wrongfully convicted and that the case could jeopardize the death penalty.

Dr. Phil McGraw of TV fame and best-selling author John Grisham on Monday testified before Texas lawmakers who brought a death row inmate’s execution to a sudden halt last week.

The inmate, Robert Roberson, had been scheduled to testify following his 11th-hour reprieve on Thursday but it was delayed amid a flurry of legal filings and wrangling. The House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence delayed his testimony Monday and instead heard from a number of other witnesses.

The committee is looking at whether to overhaul a Texas law meant to provide recourse for people convicted based on “junk science.” The bipartisan committee issued a subpoena for Roberson last week in a successful maneuver designed to stop his execution for the death of his 2-year-old daughter Nikki. (Roberson was convicted based on the now largely debunked Shaken Baby Syndrome.)

McGraw, who believes the death penalty is appropriate in some cases, said Roberson’s jury did not get the full picture and that Roberson was wrongfully convicted – a sentiment echoed by a large number of scientific and medical experts and the lead detective in the case who now admits he got it wrong.

“I am 100 percent convinced that were facing a miscarriage of justice here,” McGraw told the committee about Roberson’s case. “I say that because I do not believe that Mr. Roberson has had due process in this case. I do not believe he has yet enjoyed a fair trial in this matter.”

Here’s what to know about Monday’s testimony, and why Dr. Phil was at the hearing.

Why did Dr. Phil testify?

McGraw, who is not a medical doctor but holds a doctorate in clinical psychology, has closely followed Roberson’s case, met with the inmate a number of times, and conducted significant research in collaboration with the Innocence Project. Recently, he aired a two-part special that delved into the questionable forensic evidence used in Roberson's conviction, particularly focusing on the now-debunked Shaken Baby Syndrome hypothesis. These episodes highlighted concerns about the fairness of the trial and the reliability of the evidence.

The special − called "Shaken Baby Syndrome, Junk Science & The Man Sitting on Death Row" and "Robert Roberson: Is He Innocent?" − raised critical questions about outdated medical science and the potential for a wrongful conviction.

McGraw emphasized the importance of reassessing the forensic evidence presented during Roberson's trial, saying the stakes are high.

"The death penalty hangs in the balance here because if we get this wrong in a case like this, I think the death penalty could come under real attack," he said.

John Grisham ("The Firm," "A Time to Kill"), who previously wrote a column about Roberson's case, also testified in favor of Roberson's innocence.

What was Robert Roberson convicted of?

Roberson was convicted of killing his daughter in their home in the East Texas city of Palestine in 2002.

Roberson reported hearing Nikki cry and finding she had fallen out of bed. After soothing her, he said, they both went back to sleep. Later, when Roberson woke again, he found Nikki wasn’t breathing, and her lips had turned blue. At the emergency room, doctors observed symptoms consistent with brain death. She was pronounced dead the next day.

Doctors and investigators at the time jumped to the conclusion that Nikki died of shaken baby syndrome, but the toddler had pneumonia in both lungs, pre-existing conditions for which she was prescribed opioids now banned for children, and undiagnosed sepsis.

Shaken Baby Syndrome has been largely debunked as junk science, and the lead investigator in Roberson's case told USA TODAY's The Excerpt podcast that he botched the investigation.

"Robert is a completely innocent man and we got it completely wrong, because we were looking for the wrong things," Brian Wharton said, adding that his confirmation bias and a number of misunderstandings wrongly pointed him to Roberson's guilt.

"I was wrong. I didn't see Robert. I did not hear Robert," Wharton said. "I can tell you now, he is a good man. He is a kind man. He is a gracious man. And he did not do what the state of Texas and I have accused him of."

What led to Robert Roberson's stay of execution

The dramatic path that led to the stay of Roberson's execution began with the Texas House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence, which heard hours of expert testimony in Roberson's case last week and unanimously voted to subpoena Roberson and schedule his testimony on Monday − four days after his execution.

The Texas Department of Criminal Justice, which carries out executions, was proceeding with the execution as scheduled Thursday despite the subpoena, telling USA TODAY that it was "preparing and planning to proceed as normal."

Shortly after that, Travis County Judge Jessica Mangrum heard arguments from Texas Republican Rep. Jeff Leach and Democratic Rep. Joe Moody, who were requesting a temporary restraining order of the execution so they could carry out the subpoena and hear Roberson's testimony. Mangrum granted the temporary restraining order but the state Attorney General's Office immediately appealed, and the Texas Criminal Court of Appeals overturned Mangrum's decision.

Although that avenue ultimately failed, Leach and Moody took the fight to the Texas high court, filing an emergency motion for a stay of execution to allow for Roberson's testimony Monday.

"If TDCJ (the Texas Department of Criminal Justice) follows through with executing Mr. Roberson on October 17, it willforever deprive the Committee from hearing Mr. Roberson’s valuable and relevant testimony to which it is entitled," they argued. "His testimony is extremely valuable to the Committee and the Texas public as it will further the Committee and Legislature’s policies of ensuring fair and just administration and execution of laws within their jurisdiction."

The court agreed to stop the execution to allow the testimony.

Republican Gov. Greg Abbott broke weeks of silence in the case on Monday, asking the Texas Supreme Court in a filing to throw out the lawmakers' subpoena.

In an amicus brief, Abbott argued that only the governor has the power to grant clemency, including a 30-day reprieve, and that the court's Thursday order would thwart the separation of powers enshrined in the state Constitution.

What happens now?

The House committee is expected to continue hearing testimony, including from Roberson himself, although the timing on that is unclear.

The committee is butting heads with the state Attorney General's Office, which does not want Roberson to testify in person. The committee and Roberson's lawyer say he must testify in person for a number of reasons, including the fact that he is autistic and not good with technology.