Emergency Application — Melvin Trotter, Applicant v. Florida, et al.

No. ______

______________________________________________________________

In the Supreme Court of the United States

______________________________________________________________

MELVIN TROTTER,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

____________________________________________________________

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE

FLORIDA SUPREME COURT

_____________________________________________________________

APPLICATION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION

______________________________________________________________

CAPITAL CASE

DEATH WARRANT SIGNED

Execution Scheduled: February 24, 2026, at 6:00 PM ET

______________________________________________________________

To the Honorable Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of

the United States:

The State of Florida has scheduled the execution of Petitioner Melvin Trotter

for Tuesday, February 24, 2026 at 6:00 PM ET. Pursuant to the Supreme Court Rule

23 and 28 U.S.C. § 2101(f), Mr. Trotter respectfully requests a stay of execution

pending the disposition of his Petition for a Writ of Certiorari accompanying this

application.

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 question raised in Mr. Trotter’s Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is

sufficiently meritorious for a grant of a writ of certiorari. The underlying issue

presents a significant, compelling question of constitutional law and a stay is

necessary to avoid Mr. Trotter being executed in violation of the Eighth Amendment

to the United States Constitution before that question is resolved. Madison v.

Alabama, 139 S. Ct. 718 (2019); Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (2007); Ford v.

Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986).

It is indisputable that Mr. Trotter will be irreparably harmed if his execution

is allowed to go forward. 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 Mr. Trotter’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,

2

J., plurality opinion). Florida has a minimal interest in finality and efficient

enforcement of judgments, while Mr. Trotter 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. Mr. Trotter submits there is a significant

possibility of the lower court’s reversal, should this Court grant the request for a stay

and review of the underlying petition. This Court’s intervention is urgently needed to

prevent Mr. Trotter’s imminent execution despite the protections from the death

penalty provided by the Eighth Amendment.

Florida’s refusal to recognize Mr. Trotter’s claim for what it is, a standalone

failure to follow protocol claim, as opposed to a challenge to the method of execution,

has prevented Mr. Trotter from being meaningfully heard during post-warrant

litigation. This Court should enter a stay of execution to allow Mr. Trotter to

demonstrate that the maladministration of Florida’s lethal injection protocol is a

violation of Mr. Trotter’s rights under the Eighth Amendment of the United States

Constitution.

CONCLUSION

“The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard

“at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S.

545, 552 (1965). Mr. Trotter’s meritorious issue cannot possibly be heard in a

meaningful manner with just days left until his execution. The important

3

constitutional issue presented by Mr. Trotter’s case requires a full appellate review

that is not truncated by his imminent execution.

For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Trotter respectfully requests that this Court

grant his application for a stay of execution scheduled for February 24, 2026, to

address the compelling constitutional question in his case on the merits.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Melody Jacquay

MELODY JACQUAY-ACOSTA

Florida Bar No. 1010248

Assistant CCRC-M

/s/ Ann Marie Mirialakis

*ANN MARIE MIRIALAKIS

Florida Bar No. 658308

Assistant CCRC-M

/s/ Mahham Syed

Mahham Syed

Florida Bar No. 1049535

Assistant CCRC-M

Counsels of Record for Petitioner

*Member of the Bar of the Supreme Court

Dated: February 19, 2026

4