BELL WARRANT: Florida Supreme Court affirms denial of postconviction claims
Michael Bell's execution is scheduled for July 15 at 6:00 p.m. Today, the Florida Supreme Court denied his claims.
Michael Bell’s execution is scheduled for July 15 at 6:00 p.m. Following the Circuit Court’s Order denying his claims, Bell filed an appeal of the Order. Today, the Florida Supreme Court issued an opinion affirming the denial.
The Court issued a 54-page per curiam opinion affirming the circuit court’s denial of Bell’s claims.
First, on Bell’s claim that the “circuit court erred in permitting certain witnesses to invoke their privilege against self-incrimination,” the Court determined the circuit court did not err. The Court acknowledged the State’s explanation in its Answer Brief that the witnesses were in a catch-22 and, unless offered immunity by the State, subject to perjury by testifying either way:
The Court further summarily denied Bell’s claim that the witnesses’ invocation of the Fifth Amendment violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses with citations suggesting that this right does not attach to postconviction proceedings—only trial.
On the merits of Bell’s Brady/Giglio claims, the Court agreed with the circuit court’s characterization of the claims that they “did not demonstrate prosecutorial misconduct, but rather that the State leveraged the law permissibly to prosecute Defendant’s crimes.” The Court reiterated, as it has previously stated, “that recantations, as a general matter, are highly unreliable as a form of newly discovered evidence.” The Court also agreed with the circuit court that Bell’s claims are untimely.
The Court went on to hold that even if the witnesses’ affidavit were true, they would not establish a right to relief under Brady/Giglio considering the “overwhelming evidence of Bell’s guilt and evidence in support of the aggravating factors found by the trial court . . . .”
The Court further rejected Bell’s claim related to the totality of the circumstances.
On Bell’s claim “that the warrant time period in his case is unreasonable short,” the Court determined the claim is without merit.
The Court also denied Bell’s motion for stay of execution and to relinquish jurisdiction.
Justice Labarga concurred in result with an opinion, writing that he concurred in result because he was “convinced that Bell was provided with adequate notice and opportunity to be heard” in the proceedings below. However, he wrote separately to “again express [his] concerns about the extremely short time frame for this case and other recent death warrant cases” and added:
I commend the work of all involved in what can only be described as a grueling post-warrant process that has taken place since the signing of Bell’s death warrant on June 13, 2025. As is clear from the record, the time period involved in this case is especially compact due to the June 23, 2025, evidentiary hearing involving multiple claims of newly discovered evidence.1
The filings in this case can be downloaded here.
News Article
TFDP Prior Coverage of Bell’s Warrant
My thoughts are with everyone involved in the warrant- and execution-related process.
(Emphasis added.)