No. 14-6170 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ______________________________________________________________________________ WILLIE TYRONE TROTTIE, PETITIONER v. WILLIAM STEPHENS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, RESPONDENT ______________________________________________________________________________ Request For A Stay Of Execution Dated: September 9, 2014 _/s_____________________ Los Angeles, CA 90026 Zoë Dolan 7083 Hollywood Boulevard Los Angeles (347) 301-5180 zdolan@gmail.com
1
MOTION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION PENDING CONSIDERATION AND DISPOSITION OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Petitioner Willie Tyrone Trottie requests that the Court grant him a stay of execution pending the Court’s consideration and disposition of his petition for writ of
certiorari
. Texas is scheduled to execute Trottie by lethal injection tomorrow, Wednesday, August 22, 2012, after 6:00 p.m. Factual discrepancies in the evidence against Trottie remain unresolved, and decisions of the courts below rest upon application of the wrong law. There underlying dispute about the ineffectiveness of Trottie’s trial counsel ~~ who failed to interview almost a dozen witnesses with material testimony, let alone call them to testify ~~ is a real one. Indeed, at oral argument, questioning of the State’s counsel included the following observations by Judge Elrod concerning trial counsel: So we don’t look at that just fresh ourselves and say, Gosh, he should’ve, he should’ve argued, um, self-defense because th-the second, the fact that Titus shot him, he should’ve really argued self-defense, that was foolish, we can’t look at it just straight up like that… I mean, would you agree that there is room for disagreement here, that if you would have been the lawyer, you certainly would have considered that,
and we know he didn’t prepare much
... but that still doesn’t mean you lose, but, I mean, this is
not
“There’s no evidence that he should have done something different.” Recording of Oral Argument at 37:03 – 37:20, 37:42 – 38:00 (emphasis supplied). 1 A stay of execution is warranted where there is: (1) 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; (2) a significant possibility of reversal of the lower court's decision; and (3) a likelihood that irreparable harm will result if no stay is
1
Recording available at http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgumentRecordings.aspx (last visited November 5, 2013).
2 granted.
Barefoot v. Estelle
, 463 U.S. 880, 895 (1983). There is a reasonable probability that four members of the Court would consider the issue in this case sufficient for the grant of
certiorari
. The question presented is: Whether, under this Court’s decision in
Gonzalez v. Crosby
, 125 S. Ct. 2641 (2005), district courts have jurisdiction over a Rule 60(b) motion challenging a final judgment that turns on a misapplication of law governing the court’s review, where the misapplication affects the outcome of a case? This question has yet to be decided by the Court, and the resolution is integral to understanding the parameters of the Rule and its operation in practice. Without such a resolution, courts below may continue to eviscerate this Court’s holding in
Gonzalez
, as happened here. There is a probability that the Court would reverse the underlying decision of the Fifth Circuit. The federal courts below applied the wrong law underlying the statute of conviction for Trottie’s death sentence, and the state court decision applied the wrong law in evaluating Trottie’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim in the first instance ~~ and both misapplications remain outstanding issues. Contrary to the prior court decisions, a Rule 60(b) motion is proper because no court decision to date has cured these fundamental problems in the judgment. The harm absent a stay is irrevocable, as Trottie will be executed. Moreover, as discussed in the petition, the execution will occur without any court ever having reviewed the core of Trottie’s claim that his death sentence resulted from Texas’s appointment of counsel to him who was not functioning as the “counsel” guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment.
Strickland v. Washington
, 466 US 668, 687 (1984).
