Whether the Sixth Amendment requires retroactive application of evolving standards of counsel qualifications in capital cases to determine the effectiveness of trial representation

No question identified. : 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.” Id. (quoting White v. Florida, 458 U.S. 1301, 1302 (1982) (Powell, J., in chambers). PETITIONER SHOULD BE GRANTED A STAY OF EXECUTION The questions raised in Windom’s Petition for a Writ of Certiorari are sufficiently meritorious for a grant of a writ of certiorari. The underlying issues present significant, compelling questions of constitutional law and a stay is necessary to avoid Windom being executed in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (2007), Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986), and Madison v. Alabama, 139 S. Ct. 718 (2019). It is indisputable Windom will be irreparably harmed if his execution is allowed to go forward, and the balance of equities weighs heavily in favor of a stay. Florida’s interest in the timely enforcement of judgments handed down by its courts must be weighed against Windom’s continued interest in his life. See Ohio Adult Parole Auth. v. Woodard, 523 U.S. 272, 289 (1998) (“[I]t is incorrect ... to say that a prisoner has been deprived of all interest in his life before his execution.”) (O’Connor, J., plurality opinion). Florida has a minimal interest in finality and efficient enforcement of judgments, while Windom has a right and significant interest in ensuring that his execution comports with the Constitution. In addition, the irreversible nature of the death penalty supports granting a stay. “[A] death sentence cannot begin to be carried out by the State while substantial legal issues remain outstanding.” Barefoot, 463 U.S. at 888. Should this Court grant the request for a stay and review of the underlying petition, Widom submits there is a significant possibility of the lower court’s reversal. This Court’s intervention is urgently needed to prevent Windom’s imminent execution despite the protections from the death penalty provided by the Eighth Amendment. Windom’s case presents two significant constitutional issues, which need to be fully addressed by this Court free from the extreme time constraints set by the warrant signed by July 29, 2025. Windom’s execution is scheduled for August 28, 2025. Windom respectfully requests this Court enter a stay of execution. First, as further detailed in Windom’s contemporaneous petition for writ of certiorari, Windom argues that he was not afforded his Sixth Amendment right to trial counsel when he was represented by unqualified counsel, whom would not have been permitted to represent Mr. Windom under today’s standards for capital counsel and that evolving standards of decency should be applied to the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution, right to counsel. Windom’s right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution was violated when the State allowed an attorney not qualified to represent clients in capital murder cases, to handle Mr. Windom’s case. At the time that trial counsel represented Mr. Windom, there were no special qualifications imposed for capital attorneys. The trial record indicates counsel was clearly not acting as the Sixth Amendment envisioned, especially in capital cases. Trial counsel lacked the basic understanding and knowledge of how to investigate complicated mental health investigations or how to present such defenses at a trial and penalty phase ina capital trial. Under the evolved standards today, the rules in place now would have prevented this injustice. Therefore, applyi