WARRANT: Ford's Motion to Stay and State's Answer Brief at Florida Supreme Court
James Ford's execution is scheduled for February 13. Yesterday, Ford filed a Motion to Stay his execution. This afternoon, the State filed its response to Ford's motion and its Answer Brief.
James Ford’s execution is scheduled for 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 13, 2025—the first for the State in 2025.
Ahead of his execution, Ford filed a two-count successive motion for postconviction relief in the circuit court. (More here.) After denying Ford’s request for an evidentiary hearing,1 the circuit court denied Ford’s motion. (More here.) Ford appealed to the Florida Supreme Court, raising three claims. (More on Ford’s arguments here.) He has also filed a motion to stay the execution and send the case back to the circuit court.
Ford’s Motion to Stay
Yesterday, Ford, through his attorneys, moved to stay the execution and for the Court to relinquish jurisdiction back to the circuit court so that he can file an amended postconviction motion on which an evidentiary hearing may be held.
In the Motion, Ford argues that, since his original motion was filed in the circuit court on January 18, “new evidence related to Ford’s current mental impairments has been discovered that should be considered by the lower court.” Specifically, the Motion argues:
Due to the extreme time constraints caused by the arbitrary warrant timeframe set by the governor, the lower court could only consider the results of Dr. Eisenstein’s preliminary evaluation of Ford on January 16th, and was not apprised of the full evaluation results because the court denied Ford’s prior request for a stay.
The Motion emphasizes the short warrant period that restricts the time Ford has to litigate his claims.
This afternoon, the State filed its Response to Ford’s Motion. The State argues that the Motion is an attempt by Ford to “continue to develop his procedurally barred, dilatory, and meritless claims” and that “a stay is unwarranted and would violate Florida law.” As to the new evidence claimed in the Motion, the State argues that “[t]he new testing by Dr. Eisenstein simply amounts to more of the same evidence already presented to the lower court concerning Ford’s low testing results.”
The State’s filing also indicates that John Guard is the acting Attorney General for the State since Ashley Moody has been confirmed to the Senate.
Full copies of the filings can be accessed on the Court’s docket here.
State’s Answer Brief
Also this afternoon, the State filed its Answer Brief in response to Ford’s Initial Brief filed Wednesday.
At the outset, the State’s Brief says that oral argument is unnecessary and will not aid the decision-making process.
The State’s arguments in response to Ford’s three claims can be summarized as follows.
First, as to Fords’ procedural argument, the State argues that Ford’s “claim is procedurally barred for not having been presented below in addition to being unsound, legally incorrect, and completely contrary to the rules of criminal procedure, Florida Statute’s “terms and conditions” clause, and the principles of finality.”
Second, as to Ford’s Roper claim regarding his mental age at the time of the crime, the State argues that the claim is “procedurally barred and untimely” because “[h]is low developmental and mental age was known to him at the time of his trial and offered as mitigation during his penalty phase.” Further, the State argues that this claim “is foreclosed by binding precedent.”
Third, the State argues that “Ford’s jury unanimity claim was correctly denied” because the “Court has repeatedly held that a unanimous death recommendation is not constitutionally required to make a defendant eligible for the death penalty.”
Full copies of the State’s Answer Brief can be accessed on the Court’s docket here.
Ford’s Reply Brief is due Monday at 3:00 p.m.
TFDP Prior Coverage of the Ford Warrant
My thoughts are with everyone involved in the warrant- and execution-related process.