Does the Petitioner's execution violate the Eighth and Fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution when the government and trial court interfered with Petitioner's ability to present evidence in warrant litigation?

After Michael Bell’s death warrant was signed, a key witness, Henry Edwards, recanted his trial testimony and admitted that he had not witnessed Bell commit the murders. Then, a second key witness, Charles Jones, recanted his trial testimony and admitted t hat Bell did not confess to him and that he did not see Bell with the murder weapon. Both witnesses said they lied at Bell’s trial , at the behest of the lead detective and the prosecutor , due to coercion and threats and in exchange for undisclosed leniency. Despite the extreme limitations of the 32 -day warrant period, Bell found a number of other trial witnesses who corroborated the recanting witnesses’ claims of coercion and threats by la w enforcement and some of these witnesses also changed important parts of their trial testimony. Bell was granted an evidentiary hearing. At the hearing, the State and judge warned the witnesses that they may be prosecuted for perjury for saying anything that contradicted their trial testimony. Predictably, the witnesses took the 5th. The judge also permitted the witnesses to assert nearly blanket Fifth Amen dment privileges when challenged about what they had recently told Bell’s investigators. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s finding that Bell did not prove that his case had been tainted by lying witnesses, witnesses with credibility issues , and police and prosecutorial misconduct. This case presents the following question : Does the Petitioner ’s execution violate the Eighth and Fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution when the conduct of the government and the trial court interfered with Petitioner ’s ability to present evidence in warrant litigation? ii STATEMENT OF