Time is running out for Richard Knight, a Florida death row inmate scheduled to be executed May 21 after Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a death warrant on April 24, prompting allegations from defense attorneys and legal advocates that the accelerated timeline violates multiple constitutional protections.
The death warrant set an execution date less than a month later, leaving limited time for appeals and post-conviction litigation in a case that defense attorneys argue involves unresolved constitutional claims.
According to a report published May 5 by “Tracking Florida’s Death Penalty,” a Substack blog authored by Florida attorney and death row litigator Melanie Verdecia, Knight’s case raises serious legal issues regarding due process, access to counsel and the compressed timeline imposed by the courts.
Knight filed a motion to stay his execution May 24 based on a habeas petition, but the Florida Supreme Court denied the petition three days later and dismissed the motion. At the time the death warrant was issued, Knight had a habeas petition pending before the Florida Supreme Court since June 2025, and it had been fully briefed by July 31, 2025.
Rather than stay the execution to allow additional review of the petition, the Florida Supreme Court denied it April 27.
According to the report and recently filed briefing before the Florida Supreme Court, the expedited execution schedule also infringes on Knight’s constitutional rights.
The court issued a briefing schedule for execution-related litigation April 22, requiring Knight’s initial briefs to be filed by May 8. According to the report, Knight’s attorney was simultaneously handling another death penalty case, Davis v. Guerrero, and requested extensions due to overlapping obligations.
The Florida Supreme Court denied those requests, leaving Knight’s counsel in what the report described as a “dire conundrum as he now has two death-sentenced clients with imminent deadlines (Mr. Knight with an execution date).”
The report also notes Knight filed another emergency request for a one-day extension because the attorney’s spouse was facing urgent medical issues, including surgery.
“There have been subsequent developments that Mr. Knight wanted to bring to this Court’s attention; those circumstances require an additional extension of the Scheduling Order beyond the 72 hours that Mr. Knight requested,” the filing states.
That request remains pending.
As a direct result of these setbacks, Knight filed a post-conviction motion Saturday, May 2, raising several constitutional claims. The motion alleges that “Mr. Knight’s convictions and death sentences are unreliable and stand in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution.”
The motion further argues that “[t]he unreasonable truncation and surprise nature of Florida’s death warrant process have deprived Mr. Knight of a full, fair postconviction process in violation of the Eighth Amendment and the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.”
Knight’s filing also challenges “section 10(i)” of the Florida Department of Corrections’ Execution by Lethal Injection Procedures, alleging that the policy authorizes unqualified execution team members to perform venous cut-down surgery without local anesthesia in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
Despite the significance of those claims, the Florida Supreme Court has limited time to consider them before the scheduled execution date. Briefing on the motions is set to conclude Thursday, May 7, leaving approximately two weeks before Knight’s execution is scheduled to occur.
Knight’s motions underscore the broader controversy surrounding Robert Knight v. State of Florida and the legal process leading up to his scheduled execution.
Knight’s habeas petition, which remained pending for more than a year, raised allegations of violations of multiple constitutional amendments tied to both his conviction and death sentence. According to the report, the sudden issuance of a death warrant by DeSantis, coupled with the Florida Supreme Court’s denial of Knight’s habeas petition and repeated denials of short extensions requested by defense counsel, has intensified concerns among death penalty critics and legal advocates.
In the end, Knight’s case underscores how rapidly the legal system can move once a death warrant is signed, leaving little room for extensive review or unforeseen complications. As the Florida Supreme Court denied broader extensions despite mounting pressures on defense counsel, the case raises difficult questions about whether the demands of speed and finality are overshadowing the careful consideration due process requires in a case where the stakes are irreversible.
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.
