Whether the Eighth Amendment prohibits the execution of a death row inmate when substantial constitutional questions regarding the method of execution or mental competency remain unresolved

Mr. Randolph will be able to demonstrate that the Florida Supreme Court should be reversed and proceedings befitting the interests at stake should be held. In this case, the state courts have foreclosed adequate and substantive review. Given the final nature of the death penalty, no point should exist at which proper consideration is foreclosed. “[E]xecution is the most irremediable and unfathomable of penalties .. . death is different.” Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399, 411 (1986) (citing Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280, 305 (1976) (opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, J.J.)). Absent a stay of execution by this Court, Mr. Randolph will suffer a clear, irreparable harm. Wainwright v. Booker, 473 U.S. 935, 937 n.1 (1985) (Powell, J., concurring) (finding irreparable harm requirement “necessarily present in capital cases”). Additionally, the Florida Supreme Court’s refusal to grant Eighth Amendment protection is not just a matter of life and death for Mr. Randolph. It degrades the public’s interest in living in a humane society. See, Ford, 477 U.S. at 409-10 (noting the Eighth Amendment protects not only the individual, but also “the dignity of society itself from the barbarity of exacting mindless vengeance”). CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Randolph respectfully requests that this Court grant this application, stay his execution set for November 20, 2025, at 6:00 p.m., and address the important constitutional questions in this case. Respectfully submitted, /slJAMES L. DRISCOLL JR JAMES L. DRISCOLL, JR. *Counsel of Record MARIE-LOUISE SAMUELS PARMER Special CCRC-South JEANINE COHEN Staff Attorney CAPITAL COLLATERAL REGIONAL COUNSEL — SOUTH 110 SE 6TH STREET, SUITE 701, ForT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301 TELEPHONE: (954) 713-1284 FAx: (954) 713-1299 Counsel for the Petitioner November 17, 2025