WARRANT: James' initial brief filed at Florida Supreme Court
This afternoon, James filed his initial brief in his appeal of the circuit court’s denial of his successive motion for postconviction relief.
Edward James’ execution is scheduled for 6:00 p.m. on March 20. If completed, it will be the second execution in the State this year.
On February 26, the circuit court entered written orders denying James’ successive motion for postconviction relief. On February 28, James filed a Notice of Appeal of the circuit court’s denial of his successive motion for postconviction relief. This afternoon, James filed his initial brief. The State’s answer brief is due Friday at 3:00 p.m.
On Monday, James filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus and motion for stay of execution at the Court. The State’s response to the petition is due Friday at 3:00 p.m.1
James’ Initial Brief
James raises three issues in his appeal of the circuit court’s summary denial of James’ successive motion for postconviction relief.
The Brief summarizes this argument as follows:
The totality of circumstances in James’ case, including his thirty years on death row, violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. James urges this Court to consider his cognitive decline, his physical and mental deterioration following a nearfatal heart attack, his victimization by other inmates, his lack of basic human contact, and his history prior to being on death row including repeated head traumas and extensive drug and alcohol abuse, all of which have exacerbated his current condition and render his execution in violation of the Eighth Amendment’s cruel and unusual punishment clause.
The Brief summarizes this argument as follows:
Newly discovered evidence of James’ 2023 brain scans following his near-fatal heart attack demonstrate that his execution would violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Despite James’ diligence, these scans were only made available to him just prior to Governor DeSantis signing his death warrant. Preliminary reviews of these scans revealed evidence of James’ brain dysfunction that is relevant to the type of individualized sentencing required by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
The Brief summarizes this argument as follows:
This claim is not a relitigation of a Hurst claim. In fact, nowhere in James’ motion for postconviction relief following the signing of his death warrant does he mention Hurst. Rather, this claim alleges that nonunanimous jury verdicts do not comport with the evolving standards of decency; and executing someone whose death sentence was imposed by a non-unanimous jury constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. The State of Florida is an extreme outlier among the states that still apply the death penalty for executing people with nonunanimous jury recommendations. James urges this Court to re-examine the compelling data of the evolving standards of decency across the United States and hold that his execution is prohibited by the Eighth Amendment because one juror voted to spare his life.
James requests oral argument on this appeal.
A full copy of the brief can be found on the docket here.
TFDP Prior Coverage of the James Warrant
My thoughts are with everyone involved in the warrant- and execution-related process.
I think I had the response deadline wrong in my last post. Apologies!
It does not take a brilliant juror or a series of attorneys to recognize the fact that James should not face man-made death. Let this old man go into population