BELL WARRANT: Bell files motion to stay and to relinquish jurisdiction
Bell's execution is scheduled July 15. On Thursday, Bell filed a Motion for Stay of Execution and to Relinquish Jurisdiction for Further Fact Development at the Florida Supreme Court.
Michael Bell’s execution is scheduled for July 15 at 6:00 p.m. Bell currently has an appeal pending at the Florida Supreme Court challenging the circuit court’s denial of his claim related to newly discovered evidences of witnesses’ recantations. On Thursday, Bell filed a Motion for Stay of Execution and to Relinquish Jurisdiction for Further Fact Development.
In the motion, Bell asks the Court to stay his execution and to “relinquish jurisdiction in order for Bell to present new claims and evidence to the trial judge.” Essentially, Bell asks the Court to stay (delay) his execution and send the case back to the trial court so that he can further develop his claims of newly discovered evidence on the record.
The Motion states:
Because of the short warrant period established by the Governor, this Court and the circuit court were forced to issue incredibly short deadlines for completion of post-warrant postconviction proceedings. Bell had seven days from the first discovery of newly discovered evidence to conducting of the post-warrant evidentiary hearing. It should come as no surprise that with additional time, additional evidence has been discovered that supports Bell’s claims.
Further, the Motion states that, despite the trial court’s denial of his motion, “Bell’s attorneys and investigators have continued to search for more witnesses who could support the allegations of police misconduct, false testimony, and suppressed evidence.” The Motion then details the new evidence obtained by Bell’s defense team, including detective handwritten notes that were never previously produced to Bell’s team that “directly contradict” trial testimony. The Motion also indicates that Bell’s team has obtained several additional sworn affidavits recanting or changing information or testimony that was given at Bell’s original trial.
On Friday, the States responded to Bell’s motion and argued that “Bell fails to establish good cause as to why these new subclaims could not have been raised in his June 18 motion, let alone why they are being raised for the first time in this Court.” Further, the State argued that “Bell’s new subclaims are both untimely under [Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure] 3.851(d)(1)-(2) and meritless on the face of the record.”
As to Bell’s appeal, the State filed its Answer Brief on June 27, and Bell filed his Reply Brief on June 30. The Brief is now fully briefed.
The filings can be downloaded from the Florida Supreme Court docket here.
TFDP Prior Coverage of Bell’s Warrant
My thoughts are with everyone involved in the warrant- and execution-related process.