Whether the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit executing a defendant whose death sentences were imposed by bare majority jury votes and judicial override of jury recommendations, particularly where similarly situated defendants received relief post-Hurst and the sentencing scheme creates a substantial risk of arbitrary and capricious imposition of the death penalty

No question identified. : To the Honorable Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States and Circuit Justice for the Eleventh Circuit: The State of Florida has scheduled the execution of Petitioner, Edward James Zakrzewski, II, for July 31, 2025, at 6:00 p.m. The Florida Supreme Court denied relief on Tuesday, July 22, 2025. Mr. Zakrzewski respectfully requests that this Court stay his execution, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 23 and 28 U.S.C. § 2101(f), pending consideration of his concurrently filed petition for a writ of certiorari. STANDARDS FOR A STAY OF EXECUTION The standards for granting a stay of execution are well-established. Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 895 (1983). There “must be a reasonable probability that four members of the Court would consider the underlying issue sufficiently meritorious for the grant of certiorari or the notation of probable jurisdiction; there must be a significant possibility of reversal of the lower court's decision; and there must be a likelihood that irreparable harm will result if that decision is not stayed.” Jd. (internal quotations omitted). PETITIONER SHOULD BE GRANTED A STAY OF EXECUTION The question raised in Mr. Zakrzewski’s petition is sufficiently meritorious for a grant of a writ of certiorari. The underlying issues present significant, compelling questions of constitutional law which deserve to be fully addressed by the Court free from the constraints of a warrant. A stay is necessary to avoid Mr. Zakrzewski being executed in violation of the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Mr. Zakrzewski will be irreparably harmed if this Court does not intervene. The irreversible nature of the death penalty supports granting a stay. This Court has long recognized “death is a punishment different from all other sanctions.” Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280, 303-04 (1976). See Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399, 411 (1986) (“Execution is the most irremediable and unfathomable of penalties; .. . death is different.”). Thus, “there is a corresponding difference in the need for reliability in the determination that death is the appropriate punishment.” Id. at 305. Mr. Zakrzewski’s three death sentences stem from two bare majority jury votes of 7-5 and the trial judge’s override of the jury’s 6-6 recommendation for a life sentence on the third count. After this Court’s decision in Hurst}, Florida courts arbitrarily decided death sentences which became final prior to June 24, 2002 were not entitled to relief. Thus, Mr. Zakrzewski’s death sentences, which are the product of an unconstitutional capital sentencing scheme, were never overturned despite over a hundred other similarly situated capital defendants in Florida receiving relief. See Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 188 (1976) (holding the death penalty cannot “be imposed under sentencing procedures that created a substantial risk that it would be inflicted in an arbitrary and capricious manner.”). The issues associated with Mr. Zakrzewski’s death sentences evince they have been imposed in an arbitrary, capricious, and discriminatory manner in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. “The Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments cannot tolerate the 1 Hurst v. Florida, 577 U.S. 92 (2016). infliction of a sentence of death under legal systems that permit this unique penalty to be so wantonly and so freakishly imposed.” Id. The State of Florida continues to be an extreme outlier when it comes to capital punishment. Mr. Zakrzewski’s death sentences and impending execution stand in violation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Bare majority jury recommendations and jury overrides have not only been abolished in Florida, but also do not comport with the evolving standards of decency. Executing an individual like Mr. Zakrzewski whose death sentences were imposed by a bare majority jury recommendation and jury override con