WARRANT: State's response to James' motions and no evidentiary hearing
Yesterday, the State responded to James' motions filed over the weekend seeking relief from the execution. Also yesterday, the Court entered an Order denying an evidentiary hearing on James' claims.
Last week, Gov. DeSantis signed a warrant for Edward James’ execution,1 which is scheduled for 6:00 p.m. on March 20. If completed, it will be the second execution in the State this year.
On Sunday, James filed (a) a successive motion for postconviction relief, (b) a motion for stay of execution and for leave to amend his successive motion for postconviction relief, and (c) a motion for MRI, CT Scan, PET or SPECT Scan and EEG. More here.
Yesterday, the State filed its response to each motion. Also yesterday, the Court held a Huff hearing and entered an Order denying an evidentiary hearing.
State’s Response to James’ Postconviction Motion
I. The State argues that James’ claim of newly discovered evidence related to his mental decline is untimely because the claim is not “newly discovered evidence” but rather “a compilation of evidence, much of which was available at the time of [his] trial, all of which has been available for far more than one year.” The State also argues that the claim is procedurally barred because James “presented and then waived a similar claim in his initial postconviction motion.” Finally, the State argues that the claim is without merit.
II. The State argues that James’ claim of newly discovered evidence related to his brain scans is untimely because he is “essentially asserting a freestanding right to develop mitigation evidence untethered to a cognizable postconviction claim.” The State also argues that the claim is procedurally barred, stating “James’ claim does not constitute any challenge to the validity of his judgments of convictions and sentences, all of which were affirmed on direct appeal.” Finally, the State argues that the claim is without merit because “James’ alleged cognitive decline would not result in a life sentence at a new penalty phase.”
III. The State argues that James’ claim related to the jury’s nonunanimous recommendation for death is procedurally barred and untimely because it was “raised and rejected in a prior motion for postconviction relief.” Further, the State argue the claim has been rejected under binding precedent.
A full copy of the response can be downloaded here.
State’s Response to James’ Motion for Stay
In its response to James’ motion for a stay, the State argues that staying James’ execution would violate Florida law because “the victims’ family members have a constitutional right for James’ proceedings to be free from unreasonable delay, and they also have a right to a prompt and final conclusion of his postjudgment proceedings.”
I’m not here to weigh in on the arguments, but it’s worth mentioning that it’s been over 30 years since James was convicted and sentenced to death. Now the State argues that his warrant-related claims must be resolved in 30 days.
A full copy of the response can be downloaded here.
State’s Response to James’ Motion for Neoruoimaging
In its response, the State argues that James’ requests are “untimely, without merit and a thinly veiled attempt to delay his execution.” The State argues that James has been aware of his cognitive decline for at least six years and “chose not to pursue the now-requested testing until his death warrant was signed.”
A full copy of the response can be downloaded here.
Order on Case Management Conference
Yesterday afternoon, the trial court entered an Order determining that “Defendant’s motions can be decided without an evidentiary hearing” and, therefore, “no evidentiary hearing will be held.”
TFDP Prior Coverage of the James Warrant
My thoughts are with everyone involved in the warrant- and execution-related process.