Florida Supreme Court denies appeal for Jeffrey Hutchinson, convicted of quadruple murder
Florida Supreme Court denies appeal for Jeffrey Hutchinson, convicted of quadruple murder
Show Caption
Hide Caption
Florida death penalty: What to know
Capital felony convictions are eligible for the death penalty in Florida. Here's what to know about capital punishment in the Sunshine State.
Florida Supreme Court denied Jeffrey Hutchinson's appeal, upholding his death sentence for the 1998 murders of his girlfriend and her three children.
Hutchinson's execution is scheduled for May 1, 2025, despite claims of Gulf War Illness impacting his mental state.
This will be Florida's fourth execution of 2025, following a pause in 2020-2022.
The Florida Supreme Court on Monday, April 21, unanimously denied Jeffrey G. Hutchinson's latest appeal, according to an order posted on the state court's website.
Pending any other moves in state or federal courts by his attorneys, the war veteran convicted of murdering his girlfriend and her three young children in Crestview nearly three decades ago is scheduled to be put to death at 6 p.m. ET on Thursday, May 1, 2025. Gov. Ron DeSantis signed his death warrant on March 31.
Hutchinson's attorneys argued he had brain damage and cognitive impairment from injuries suffered during the Gulf War, according to Jim Saunders of the News Service of Florida, and that the newly discovered diagnosis of Gulf War Illness would have meant his acquittal on first-degree murder charges or life in prison rather than the death penalty.
However, when the state Supreme Court upheld an April 4 ruling against Huchinson from Okaloosa County Circuit Judge Lacey Powell Clark, the court said facts "that he was exposed to sarin gas and numerous explosions while serving in the Middle East as well as his various post-war symptoms" were well-known during or before his trial.
'As for the diagnoses or conditions on which Hutchinson relies, we acknowledge that the scientific understanding of Gulf War Illness has evolved over time,' the opinion said. 'However, the illness was a well-known diagnosable condition at the time of Hutchinson's trial. Indeed, even at that time, experts recognized that the illness encompassed mental-health and cognitive effects.'
If the execution goes as planned, Hutchinson will be the fourth execution in Florida this year. A fifth Florida execution, for convicted murderer and serial killer Glen E. Rogers, is scheduled for Thursday, May 15, 2025
The previous executions were James Ford on Feb. 13, Edward James on March 20 and Michael Tanzi on April 8. Florida did not execute any inmates in 2020, 2021 and 2022 but put to death six men in 2023 and one man, Loran K. Cole, in 2024.
Here's what to know.
Who is Jeffrey Hutchinson?
Jeffrey Glenn Hutchinson, now 62, was convicted and sentenced to death for the quadruple murder in 1998 of his girlfriend Renee Flaherty, 32, and her three children, Geoffrey, 9, Amanda, 7, and Logan, 4.
A former mechanic and security guard before joining the Army and becoming a paratrooper and Army Ranger, Hutchinson was raised in Florida but was living with Flaherty in Spokane, Washington, before they moved to the Sunshine State. Flaherty was estranged from her husband, who was stationed in Alaska, and Hutchinson was twice-divorced.
How were Renee Flaherty and her children killed?
According to court records, Hutchinson and Flaherty had been fighting on Sept. 11, 1998, before he packed some clothes and firearms into his truck and went to a nearby bar. As he drank, he told the bartender (an acquaintance) that he was "pissed off."
Prosecutors said Hutchinson came back to the house with a Mossberg 12-gauge pistol-grip shotgun and shot and killed the occupants within an hour of leaving the bar. He shot each of the victims once in the head, they said, with the oldest child also shot in the chest.
Hutchinson called the police and told a dispatcher, "I just shot my family." Police arrived to find him spattered with blood and lying in a daze on the garage floor, still holding the phone.
At times, Hutchinson claimed the murders were carried out by two masked men, that he was heavily intoxicated at the time so it couldn't be first-degree murder, and that he had diminished responsibility due to mental disorders from his service.
Hutchinson was diagnosed as suffering from Gulf War Syndrome, but the trial judge ruled him competent to stand trial. He was found guilty and given three death sentences for the children's murders and a life sentence for Flaherty.
Multiple appeals over the years have been rejected or dismissed by the Florida Supreme Court, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida.
When is Jeffrey Hutchinson scheduled to be executed?
Hutchinson's execution is scheduled for 6 p.m. ET on Thursday, May 1, 2025, at Florida State Prison in Raiford.
How many death row inmates has Florida executed?
From 1924 until May 1964, the state of Florida has executed 196 people. There were no executions from May 1964 until May 1976.
In 1972, the United States Supreme Court struck down the death penalty, but it was reinstated in 1976. Florida has carried out 107 executions since then.
When is the next execution in Florida?
Glen Rogers, known as "The Casanova Killer" or "The Cross Country Killer," is scheduled to be executed on Thursday, May 15, 2025.
Rogers was convicted and sentenced to death in 1997 for the stabbing murder of Tina Marie Cribbs near Tampa two years previously.
In 1999, Rogers was tried in California for raping and strangling Sandra Gallagher and was sentenced to death again. The two women were part of the four Rogers was believed to have killed, all red-haired and in their 30s, as he was driving across the country in 1995.
At one point, Rogers claimed he'd killed nearly 70 people, although he later said he was kidding. He also claimed to have been paid by O.J. Simpson to kill Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman in 1994, as explained in the documentary "My Brother the Serial Killer."
The News Service of Florida contributed to this story.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Nancy Mace said 'due process is for citizens.' Here's who it's really for
In early June 2025, Republican U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina wrote an X post (archived) that read: "Due process is for citizens." Her comment had been viewed more than 2.4 million times as of this writing and had amassed more than 6,500 likes. The same claim has appeared in multiple X posts. In a similar tone, in May 2025, another X user wrote: "Due process is for citizens, not invaders." (X user @NancyMace) In short, due process is the legal principle that the government must follow fair procedures before depriving a person of life, liberty or property. It serves as a safeguard against arbitrary actions by the state, ensuring that people are treated justly under the law. For a more detailed explanation, see our full breakdown in this article on former President Bill Clinton's 1996 immigration law. While Mace's post did not explicitly say that due process protections are, or should be, limited to only U.S. citizens, her replies below the post reinforced that interpretation. However, the U.S. Constitution protects all "persons," not just citizens, under the due-process clauses of the Fifth and 14th amendments. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that these protections apply to anyone physically present in the United States regardless of citizenship or immigration status. An MSNBC article on the topic similarly concluded that Mace's "implication … that noncitizens don't get that protection" was "incorrect." The South Carolina representative doubled down on her stance in the replies below her post, suggesting that noncitizens should not be entitled to due-process protections in the U.S. For example, when one X user wrote, "The Constitution doesn't say 'only citizens.' Due process applies to persons — that includes non-citizens. That's settled law," Mace replied by saying: "Skip due process coming in, don't expect it going out. Citizens first!" Other replies further suggested she believed only U.S. citizens should be entitled to such protections (archived, archived, archived). (X users @FJBIDEN_22 and @NancyMace) These exchanges were not the first time Mace commented on due process. In late May 2025, she weighed in on the principle in response to a federal judge's decision to block the deportation of eight noncitizens convicted of violent crimes. The day before U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy issued a 17-page order in which he emphasized that "the Court recognizes that the class members at issue here have criminal histories. But that does not change due process," Mace criticized the ruling, telling Fox News (archived): "They didn't want due process on their way in illegally, they shouldn't get due process on their way out." However, the representative's comments about due process contradicted remarks she made about the principle in the past. In February 2023, Mace wrote on X (archived): "Everyone deserves the right to due process. Even those we vehemently oppose." (X user @NancyMace) Snopes has reached out to Mace for comment on whether she maintains that due-process protections should apply only to U.S. citizens and how she reconciles that view with her 2023 statement. We will update this article if we receive a response. The U.S. Constitution's guarantee of due process appears in the Fifth and 14th amendments, both of which state that no person should be deprived "of life, liberty or property, without due process of law." As shown, the language uses "person," not "citizen," with regard to due-process protections. Further, the Supreme Court has repeatedly interpreted that due-process protections apply to everyone within U.S. borders regardless of citizenship or immigration status. In Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel Mezei (1953) the Court emphasized (Page 212) that "aliens who have once passed through [U.S.] gates, even illegally, may be expelled only after proceedings conforming to traditional standards of fairness-encompassed in due process of law." Similarly, in cases such as Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) and earlier decisions dating back more than a century, the Supreme Court made clear that the government cannot detain or deport people arbitrarily. In the 2001 case, the Court underscored that "the Due Process Clause applies to all persons within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent." In simple words, noncitizens must be given fair procedures, such as notice or a "credible fear interview," before being deprived of their liberty. The Supreme Court expressed the same view in the case of Reno v. Flores (1993), stating: "It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings." This was not the first time Snopes addressed a claim regarding Mace. For instance, in late May 2025, we investigated a rumor that she ordered staffers to create burner accounts to promote her online. Meanwhile, earlier in June 2025, we also fact-checked a rumor about whether the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, signed by Clinton, allowed deportation without due process. "327K Views · 15K Reactions | Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) Responds to Arguments That Illegal Immigrants Convicted of Heinous Crimes Deserve Due Process after a Judge Blocks a Deportation Flight to South Sudan | 'They Didn't Want Due Process on Their Way in Illegally, They Shouldn't Get Due Process on Their Way Out.' Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) Responds to Arguments... | by Fox News | Facebook." 2022, Accessed 6 June 2025. "U.S. Constitution - Fifth Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | | Library of Congress." 15 Dec. 1791, Constitution Annotated. "U.S. Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | | Library of Congress." 9 July 1868, Deng, Grace. "Did Nancy Mace Order Staffers to Create Burner Accounts to Promote Her Online? Here's What We Know." Snopes, 30 May 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. Dunbar, Marina. "Court Halts Trump Administration's Effort to Send Eight Men to South Sudan." The Guardian, The Guardian, 23 May 2025, Gabbatt, Adam. "Group Stranded with Ice in Djibouti Shipping Container after Removal from US." The Guardian, The Guardian, 6 June 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. " 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. "Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993)." Justia Law, Rubin, Jordan. "Due Process Is Not Limited to Citizens, Contrary to Nancy Mace's Claim." MSNBC, 4 June 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. Wrona, Aleksandra. "Bill Clinton Did Not Sign Law in 1996 Allowing Deportation without Due Process." Snopes, 5 June 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. "Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001)." Justia Law,
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Brazil court majority favors tougher social media rules
Brazil's Supreme Court reached a majority Wednesday in favor of toughening social media regulation, in a groundbreaking case for Latin America on the spread of fake news and hate speech. The South American country's highest court is seeking to determine to what extent companies like X, TikTok, Instagram and Facebook are responsible for removing illegal content, and how they can be sanctioned if they do not. The judges' final ruling will create a precedent that will affect tens of millions of social media users in Brazil. At issue is a clause in the country's so-called Civil Framework for the Internet -- a law in effect since 2014 that says platforms are only responsible for harm caused by a post if they ignore a judge's order to remove it. By Wednesday, six of the court's 11 judges had ruled in favor of higher accountability, meaning sites should monitor content and remove problematic posts on their own initiative, without judicial intervention. One judge has voted against tougher regulation, and four have yet to express an opinion. "We must, as a court, move in the direction of freedom with responsibility and regulated freedom, which is the only true freedom," Judge Flavio Dino said during Wednesday's session, broadcast online. Not doing so would be like "trying to open an airline without regulation in the name of the right of free movement," he added. Google, for its part, said in a statement that changing the rules "will not contribute to ending the circulation of unwanted content on the internet." - Coup plot - Alexandre de Moraes, one of the court's judges, has repeatedly clashed with X owner Elon Musk and various right-wing personalities over social media posts. The review is taking place in parallel with the Supreme Court trial of far-right former president Jair Bolsonaro, who is alleged to have collaborated on a coup plot to remain in power after his 2022 election defeat. Prosecutors say Bolsonaro's followers used social media to lie about the reliability of the electoral system and plot the downfall of successor Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. Last year, Moraes blocked X for 40 days for failing to comply with a series of court orders against online disinformation. He had previously ordered X to suspend the accounts of several Bolsonaro supporters. Musk and other critics say Moraes is stifling free speech, and US President Donald Trump's administration is weighing sanctions against the judge, whom Bolsonaro accuses of judicial "persecution." Lula, who emerged the victor in the tightly-fought 2022 election against Bolsonaro, is advocating for "accelerating regulation" of online platforms. ffb/ll/dga/mlr/des/nl
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Brazil's top court votes to hold social media platforms accountable for user posts
By Ricardo Brito BRASILIA (Reuters) -Brazil's Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that social media companies must be held accountable for some types of content published by users on their platforms in the country, but details on the decision have yet to be resolved. Six of the 11 Supreme Court judges voted to hold platforms responsible for third-party content seen as illegal, in a decision that could result in fines against social media companies for not removing some users' posts in the country. The decision could impact the business of platforms including Meta's Facebook and Instagram, as well as TikTok, Elon Musk's X and other internet giants, such as Alphabet's Google, in a market of more than 200 million people. Only one justice so far voted to not change the current law on the matter, which says that the companies can only be found responsible for third-party content on their platforms if the firms do not comply with a legal decision ordering the content removal. Writing for the majority, Justice Gilmar Mendes said current Brazilian law represents "a veil of irresponsibility for digital platforms." "Even if they are informed of the occurrence of crimes on their platforms, they (currently) cannot be held responsible for damages caused by keeping this content online, except in the case of a court order," he said. Asked to comment, Meta sent a 2024 statement where it had said that a decision holding platforms responsible could make them "liable for virtually all types of content even without having been notified." In a statement sent before the vote which gave the court a majority, Google said the current Brazilian law regarding social media can and should be improved, "as long as procedure guarantees and criteria are set to prevent legal uncertainty and the indiscriminate content removal." TikTok and a representative of X in Brazil did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The court did not agree on the scope of the decision, such as what types of content would be considered illegal. The court's head, Luis Roberto Barroso, said he will work with the court members to find a consensus. Four judges still need to vote in the trial, which has been rolling over for months. Votes previously cast can still be changed, although that is not common. The trial is set to resume on Thursday.
