ORLANDO, Fla. — A Florida man scheduled for execution later this month filed a successive motion in the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court late Tuesday, arguing that withheld execution records, newly developed evidence of innocence, and constitutional violations render his death sentence unlawful.
James E. Hitchcock has been sentenced to execution by lethal injection for the 1977 murder of his teenage step-niece, Cynthia Driggers.
In the motion, Hitchcock seeks a stay of execution and the vacatur of his conviction and sentence, asserting that “a cumulative review of Mr. Hitchcock’s case supports a compelling case of innocence, and the execution of an innocent man violates the protection against cruel and unusual punishments under the Eighth Amendment.”
The defense claimed the state withheld public records surrounding the circumstances of lethal injection from Hitchcock. In doing so, “manufactured burdens have been placed on Mr. Hitchcock to prevent him from accessing records that would prove the conditions of his execution would violate the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
The motion argues that state agencies have created a lack of transparency around executions, stating that the “ongoing refusal by the agencies to disclose these records shrouds Florida’s lethal injection process under a veil of secrecy that undermines public trust in the procedures the State uses to conduct executions.”
As the state maintained refusal of said records, the defense argued public trust has been “undermined.” Resulting from the state’s unwillingness, Hitchcock has asked the court to review all materials prior to ruling on any objections to the case, including through an in-camera inspection of the requested records.
The defense reinforced the state’s unlawful refusal, citing that “Florida law provides any member of the public access to public records,” and argued that denying Hitchcock access imposes unequal treatment in violation of constitutional protections.
In response to Hitchcock’s request for additional information, the state argued that the accused has not put forth a legitimate claim, although the defense contends that “no other member of the Florida public is required to put forward a colorable claim — or even provide a reason — for a request for public records.”
The motion characterizes this requirement as a legal paradox, arguing Hitchcock is being required to prove a constitutional violation without access to the evidence needed to do so. Citing recent legal analysis, the filing describes this as a “Catch-22” in which “the very reason the prisoners are seeking the records … is to gather enough information to raise a colorable Eighth Amendment claim.”
The defense further claimed Hitchcock’s execution would not maintain constitutionality, arguing that records could reveal improper administration of lethal injection protocols. The motion warns that “use of any unauthorized drug could result in unprecedented complications.”
Beyond procedural claims, the motion advances a substantive claim of actual innocence supported by witness testimony and alleged confessions by Hitchcock’s brother, Richard Hitchcock.
According to the filing, “multiple witnesses have come forward and testified that Richard admitted to committing the murder of Cindy Driggers,” evidence the defense argues was not fully considered by the jury.
The motion further states that “Mr. Hitchcock’s conviction does not include consideration of the compelling case of innocence that has been uncovered since Mr. Hitchcock was convicted of First-Degree Murder in 1977.”
While Hitchcock has been found guilty of unlawful sexual activity with the victim, the defense argued “his conviction and sentence do not match the crime he has committed” and reiterated that “the execution of an innocent man would be a violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and because the imposition of a procedural bar against raising such a claim would be a manifest injustice.”
The motion also challenges forensic evidence used at trial, arguing that microscopic hair comparison testimony was unreliable. It notes that such analysis “cannot constitute a basis for positive personal identification because hairs from two different people may have precisely the same characteristics.”
Additionally, the defense points to the absence of preserved biological evidence for DNA testing, arguing that the destruction of such evidence deprived Hitchcock of the opportunity to conclusively prove his innocence.
A ruling from the court has not yet been made, as Hitchcock’s execution is set for April 30, 2026, at 6 p.m.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
