TALLAHASSEE, FL – With his execution scheduled for March 20, 2025, Edward Thomas James has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the Florida Supreme Court. His legal team argues that significant constitutional violations and newly-discovered evidence undermine the legitimacy of his conviction and sentencing.
The petition raises concerns about due process violations, ineffective assistance of counsel, and the denial of postconviction review due to now-defunct legal procedures.
James was convicted and sentenced to death in 1995 after pleading guilty to two counts of murder and no contest to two counts of capital sexual battery. The jury’s recommendation for a death sentence was non-unanimous.
At sentencing, the trial court found three statutory aggravating factors but rejected the statutory mitigating factor that James suffered from extreme emotional distress. The Florida Supreme Court upheld his conviction and sentence on direct appeal and the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari.
In subsequent years, James attempted to challenge his conviction and sentence through postconviction proceedings.
However, in 2003, he waived his right to continue those proceedings and discharged his attorneys. This decision effectively barred him from further legal review of his claims in state court.
His legal team argues that this waiver was neither fully informed nor voluntary due to his long-standing cognitive impairments, which were not fully understood at the time.
James sought to reinstate his postconviction proceedings in 2005 but was denied, with the Florida Supreme Court ruling that a “mere change of mind” was insufficient grounds for reinstatement.
This left James without legal representation for over a decade, preventing him from pursuing further appeals.
The habeas petition outlines several grounds for relief, arguing that James’ execution would constitute a miscarriage of justice due to multiple constitutional violations.
James’ attorneys argue that the Florida Supreme Court should reconsider its prior rulings, which prevented him from obtaining meaningful review of his constitutional claims. The petition contends that Florida’s legal framework at the time allowed James to waive his postconviction proceedings without fully understanding the consequences, a situation that would not occur under today’s legal standards.
The petition cites In re Amendments to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.851 and Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.142, 351 So. 3d 574 (Fla. 2022), in which the Florida Supreme Court revised its rules to prevent capital defendants from waiving postconviction counsel entirely. These rule changes reflect a recognition that defendants like James must retain legal representation to ensure access to the courts and protect their rights.
“If today’s legal standards had been in place, James would not have been left without counsel for over a decade,” the petition argues. “Justice requires that he not be faulted for his inability to access the court system during that time.”
The petition also argues that the courts have inconsistently applied rules regarding the reinstatement of postconviction proceedings. It highlights cases in which other people incarcerated on death row were permitted to reinstate their legal challenges after previously waiving them.
For example, the petition details the case of Robert Trease, who was allowed to reinstate his postconviction proceedings after changing his mind multiple times. Similarly, Victor Farr, another man incarcerated in Florida, was allowed to reinstate his postconviction challenges despite previously waiving them.
“In contrast, James was denied this opportunity, despite clear evidence that his initial waiver resulted from cognitive impairments,” the petition states. “This disparity raises serious concerns about the fairness and consistency of Florida’s death penalty procedures.”
A critical component of James’ petition is newly-obtained medical evidence, including brain scans that reveal long-standing neurodegenerative damage. These scans, taken in 2023 after James suffered a near-fatal cardiac arrest, indicate significant cerebral atrophy that likely began decades earlier.
According to a medical expert cited in the petition, “the structural brain changes may have begun during his juvenile period,” and James’ cognitive dysfunction “is much greater than any court has recognized.”
This new evidence casts doubt on previous rulings that upheld the validity of James’ waivers and guilty plea. The petition argues that, had this information been available earlier, it would have fundamentally altered how the courts evaluated his competency and the effectiveness of his legal representation.
“The new evidence demonstrates that James’ cognitive impairments were not fully understood at the time of his trial or prior postconviction proceedings,” the petition states. “Given the irreversible nature of execution, it is imperative that this Court grant a full review of his claims.”
If the Florida Supreme Court grants habeas relief, it could halt James’ execution and allow for a substantive review of his claims. At a minimum, his attorneys seek a stay of execution while the court considers the newly-presented evidence.
This case also raises broader questions about Florida’s death penalty system and the procedural barriers that prevent some people from obtaining full legal review of their cases. The petition argues that James’ case exemplifies how procedural rules, even those later deemed unjust, can result in the permanent loss of legal rights.
“This Court’s reliance on its previous decision[s] would result in manifest injustice,” the petition states, quoting State v. Akins, 69 So. 3d 261, 268 (Fla. 2011). “This Court should reconsider its prior timeliness rulings and allow for a full merits review.”
The Florida Supreme Court will now consider whether to grant a stay of execution and review James’ claims. If the court denies relief, his legal team may appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the denial of postconviction review violates due process protections under the Fourteenth Amendment.
With the scheduled execution date fast approaching, the court’s decision will be closely watched by legal experts, advocacy groups, and those following the evolving legal standards surrounding capital punishment in Florida.
