Owen Warrant Update: State responds at SCOTUS
Duane Owen’s execution remains scheduled for tomorrow at 6:00 p.m. Owen has claims pending at the U.S. Supreme Court and in the federal district court.
Duane Owen’s execution remains scheduled for tomorrow at 6:00 p.m.
As of this morning, Owen has claims pending at the U.S. Supreme Court and in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. His claims in both courts are related to his sanity for execution.1
Pending at SCOTUS
Yesterday afternoon, the State filed its brief in opposition to Owen’s petition for writ of certiorari and its response to Owen’s application for stay of execution. These claims are related to the Florida Supreme Court’s denial of Owen’s appeal of the Bradford County trial court’s determination that Owen is sane to be executed. (TFDP’s coverage of Owen’s petition is here.)
The State’s position can be summarized by this statement in the State’s response to Owen’s application for stay of execution: “[F]actual and credibility disputes are the entire premise of Owen’s petition for certiorari review.” Essentially, the State argues that Owen merely seeks another review of the same record that was rejected by the Bradford County court and the Florida Supreme Court, which is inappropriate for SCOTUS.
State’s Brief in Opposition to Owen’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari
Here’s how the State restated the questions presented in Owen’s petition to a single question:
The State then presented its argument that the writ should be denied under the following heading:
Owen’s counsel can now file a Reply, which will likely be filed some time today or early tomorrow. Once Owen’s Reply is filed, briefing is closed—at which point the Court can issue its ruling.
State’s Response to Owen’s Application for Stay of Execution
The State cites the following as the standard for establishing entitlement to a stay:
He must establish: (1) a reasonable probability that this Court would vote to grant certiorari; (2) a significant possibility of reversal; and (3) a likelihood of irreparable injury to the applicant in the absence of a stay. Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 895 (1983).
On the first two points, the following seems to summarize the State’s position:
Owen presents futile challenges to the state courts’ credibility determinations, again criticizing the state courts’ alleged undue emphasis on his self-reported alleged chronic and long-standing schizophrenia; and the state courts’ improper emphasis on the testimony of the three board-certified psychiatrists presented by the state over that of Owen’s single expert, a neuropsychologist. . . . Owen’s “questions” are not compelling, significant nor factually accurate justifications for certiorari review and consequently a stay is not warranted.
As to the third prong, the State argues that Owen’s argument that he will suffer irreparable harm if the execution proceeds is “meaningless”:
As to the third factor, Owen alleges that he will suffer irreparable harm if he is executed. However, that generic and boiler plate argument is meaningless because the inherent nature of every capital sentence is “irreparable.” This factor, derived from civil litigation, is unhelpful and not an appropriate consideration in a capital case. Owen does not provide any unique or special argument in support of this factor as it pertains to his litigation or to any specific question left unanswered in his previous litigation and caselaw.
Similar to arguments the State has made in prior filings, the State further argues that it would undermine public policy to stay the execution:
This continued recycling of the same suspect and incredible facts to support a stay would be a gross miscarriage of justice and would amount to a commutation of his death sentences for the duration of the stay. Owen is not entitled to any further review.
Furthermore, a stay continues to injure the State as a representative of Florida's citizens and the victims’ families as the interest of finality is compelling to both. The victimization continues to occur to the families and loved ones of Owen’s murder victims. Additionally, the State of Florida as a sovereign, is entitled to enforce its laws and carry out this sentence. The longer it is delayed, the greater the assault is on the sovereign’s legitimate interest and that of the families of Owen’s victims.
Owen’s counsel can now file a Reply, which will likely be filed some time today or early tomorrow. Once Owen’s Reply is filed, briefing is closed—at which point the Court can issue its ruling.
NOTE: As explained yesterday, this application is sent directly to Justice Thomas.
Federal District Court
Owen also has a petition for writ of habeas corpus pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. (More here.) The Court denied Owen’s emergency motion for stay of execution on Sunday, and the State filed its response to Owen’s petition on Monday.
There were no changes on the docket yesterday. Owen’s counsel can file a Reply. No hearing has been scheduled.
Prior TFDP coverage of Owen’s case
The background of Owen’s case can be found here.
Background on the statutory process and the proceedings in Palm Beach County is available here.
The history of Rule 3.811 is here.
The Governor’s Executive Order temporarily staying the execution to allow for the Commission’s examination of Owen is covered here.
The Governor’s determination after the Commission’s report is covered here.
The four-part series on the history of Owen’s mental illness can be found here:
The transcript from the Bradford County’s case management conference on May 26 is summarized here.
An update on the pending litigation related to Owen’s execution as of May 31, 2023, is here.
Owen’s Motion seeking review of the Governor’s determination and the evidence attached to the Motion is covered here.
The first day of testimony in Bradford County is covered here.
The second day of testimony in Bradford County is covered here.
The Bradford County trial court’s ruling is covered here.
The Florida Supreme Court’s decision on Owen’s appeal of the Palm Beach County court’s orders is covered here.
Litigation update as of June 6, 2023, at 8:30 a.m. is here.
Litigation update as of June 7, 2023, at 8:00 a.m. is here.
The State’s Answer Brief and Owen’s Reply Brief are covered here.
The Florida Supreme Court’s decision affirming the Bradford County court’s determination that Owen is sane to be executed is covered here.
Owen’s petition for writ of habeas corpus filed in the federal court on Friday, June 9, is covered here.
The federal district court’s denial of Owen’s motion for emergency stay over the weekend is covered here.
Owen’s petition for writ of certiorari filed at SCOTUS on Monday is covered here.
My thoughts are with everyone involved in the warrant and litigation process.