Jaded Evidence · Death Penalty · Data and Accountability
As of October 23, 2026
Florida’s execution surge: 19 in 2025, 18 in 2026 — and two more scheduled
Florida carried out more executions than any other state in 2025. It leads again in 2026, accounting for more than half of completed U.S. executions so far this year. Two active November dates could push Florida beyond last year’s modern-era record.
Counting rule: A completed execution is counted on the date it occurs. A signed warrant, a future execution date, a stayed execution and an unsuccessful attempt are separate events.
Sources: DPI 2025 execution list · DPI 2026 execution list · warrant outcomes
Florida’s role in the national total
In 2025, Florida carried out 19 of 47 U.S. executions — 40.4%. In 2026, it has carried out 18 of 32 — 56.3%. Since January 1, 2025, that is 37 of 79 executions nationally, or 46.8%. Percentages are calculated from the cited completed-execution counts.
Florida and the rest of the country
| Period | Florida | U.S. | Florida share |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 · full year | 19 | 47 | 40.4% |
| 2026 · through October 20 | 18 | 32 | 56.3% |
| Combined completed | 37 | 79 | 46.8% |
The 19 executions in 2025 exceeded Florida’s previous modern-era annual high of eight in 2014. The 2026 figure is a partial-year count; it should not be described as a final annual result or a per-capita rate.
Sources: DPI year-end analysis · 2026 execution list
Florida’s two scheduled November executions
William Reaves was executed on October 20, becoming Florida’s eighteenth completed execution of 2026. As of October 23, two further executions are scheduled in November.
| Scheduled date | Person | Status as of October 23 |
|---|---|---|
| November 5, 2026 · 6 p.m. Eastern | Jesse Guardado | Active warrant; Florida Supreme Court case |
| November 19, 2026 · 6 p.m. Eastern | Thomas Mitchell Overton | Active warrant; Florida Supreme Court case |
Overton’s date is November 19 in the Florida Supreme Court’s case notice and DPI’s warrant tracker. Those records are the basis for the date used here.
Why a warrant is not an execution
William Lee Thompson’s October 13 warrant was withdrawn. James Aren Duckett’s earlier March date was stayed; he was later executed on July 28. Counting every scheduled date as a death would overstate completed executions and could count one person twice.
Sources: DPI warrant-outcome record
Sources: Florida Department of Corrections — Reaves completion update · Guardado court notice · Overton court notice
The national comparison: 27 states, concentrated use
Twenty-seven states retain the death penalty. Eleven carried out executions in 2025; six have done so in 2026 to date. Federal and military jurisdictions are separate from the 27-state count.
2026 completed executions by executing state
View all 27 states — 2025 and 2026 totals
| State | 2025 · full year | 2026 · to date |
|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 5 | 2 |
| Arizona | 2 | 1 |
| Arkansas | 0 | 0 |
| California | 0 | 0 |
| Florida | 19 | 18 |
| Georgia | 0 | 0 |
| Idaho | 0 | 0 |
| Indiana | 2 | 0 |
| Kansas | 0 | 0 |
| Kentucky | 0 | 0 |
| Louisiana | 1 | 0 |
| Mississippi | 2 | 0 |
| Missouri | 1 | 0 |
| Montana | 0 | 0 |
| Nebraska | 0 | 0 |
| Nevada | 0 | 0 |
| North Carolina | 0 | 0 |
| Ohio | 0 | 0 |
| Oklahoma | 2 | 3 |
| Oregon | 0 | 0 |
| Pennsylvania | 0 | 0 |
| South Carolina | 5 | 0 |
| South Dakota | 0 | 0 |
| Tennessee | 3 | 1 |
| Texas | 5 | 7 |
| Utah | 0 | 0 |
| Wyoming | 0 | 0 |
Totals: 47 in 2025; 32 in 2026 to date. Zero means no completed executions in the period, not abolition.
Moratoria, Tennessee’s pause and the 2027 distinction
DPI identifies executive moratoria in California, Ohio, Oregon and Pennsylvania. Tennessee’s current pause is a separate development following the unsuccessful Christa Pike execution attempt.
Governor Bill Lee’s October 7 reprieve stops Gary Wayne Sutton’s execution until October 7, 2027. It does not schedule an execution for that date. Tennessee has no active remaining 2026 execution date in the warrant tracker. Describing all five states as having identical legal holds would obscure those differences.
Sources: Signed Tennessee reprieve · warrant status
Sources: DPI fact sheet, updated October 20 · 2025 execution list · 2026 execution list
Florida executions by governor
Florida’s recent acceleration is concentrated in Governor Ron DeSantis’s second term. The 2025 and 2026 completed totals account for 37 of 46 executions during his tenure through October 20.
| Governor | Tenure covered | Completed executions |
|---|---|---|
| Jeb Bush | 1999–2007 · full tenure | 21 |
| Charlie Crist | 2007–2011 · full tenure | 5 |
| Rick Scott | 2011–2019 · full tenure | 28 |
| Ron DeSantis | 2019–October 20, 2026 | 46 |
These cover terms of different lengths. They count executions carried out while each governor served, not death sentences imposed during that term.
DeSantis years — completed executions
Calculation: 2 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 6 + 1 + 19 + 18 = 46.
The comparison covers each former governor’s full tenure and Ron DeSantis’s tenure through the latest completed execution on October 20, 2026.
Sources: Suncoast Searchlight — prior governors and annual context · FDC execution list · 2026 completed executions
Florida’s death-row roster now lists 233 people
The Florida Department of Corrections roster dated October 23, 2026 lists 233 people.
This is a population snapshot, not the number of people with active warrants or the number legally available for immediate execution. New sentences, resentencing, deaths in custody and executions can all change a roster.
From death sentence to execution: the legal process
A death sentence begins a series of reviews of the conviction, punishment and conditions under which the state may carry it out. Different courts answer different questions. A case can return to a trial court, move through state and federal review, and later raise issues that were not available at sentencing. The sequence below describes Florida capital cases; stages can overlap and individual cases follow different paths.
| Stage | What is reviewed | What can extend the process |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Direct appeal | The Florida Supreme Court automatically reviews the conviction and death sentence, focusing on the trial record. The prisoner may also seek discretionary U.S. Supreme Court review. | Preparing the record, briefs and decisions takes time. Reversal can require a new trial or a new sentencing proceeding. |
| 2. State postconviction review | A Rule 3.851 motion in the trial court can raise matters such as ineffective assistance of counsel, withheld favorable evidence or newly discovered evidence. Review of the resulting order can return to the Florida Supreme Court. | Investigating records, locating witnesses, obtaining expert evaluations and conducting evidentiary hearings can require substantial work. These proceedings can develop facts that were not established in the trial record. |
| 3. Federal habeas corpus | A federal district court reviews eligible federal-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, generally after available state remedies have been exhausted. Review is constrained by statute; it is not an unrestricted new trial. A prisoner normally needs a certificate of appealability to appeal an adverse decision to the Eleventh Circuit. | Courts must resolve exhaustion, timeliness, procedural barriers and the merits of eligible claims. Further appellate proceedings and a request for U.S. Supreme Court review can follow. |
| 4. Retrial or resentencing, if ordered | A successful challenge may undo the conviction, the death sentence, or a particular ruling. The scope of the court’s order determines what must happen next. | A new trial or penalty proceeding requires preparation and can generate another appeal. Years since the first death sentence can therefore include periods when that sentence was set aside. |
| 5. Executive clemency and a warrant | Clemency is executive review distinct from judicial appeals. Under Florida’s Constitution, the Governor needs approval from two Cabinet members to commute punishment. Florida law also makes a gubernatorial warrant necessary before the sentence may be carried out. | Completion of court review alone does not supply an execution date. The clemency process, statutory certification and warrant requirements also matter. |
| 6. Post-warrant litigation and execution preparation | An execution date can trigger expedited litigation over a legally available claim, including competence to be executed or the execution method. Courts may be asked to stay the execution. | A stay, a withdrawn warrant, further testing or a required competency assessment can prevent the execution on that date. Filing a new claim does not, by itself, guarantee a stay or relief. |
Stage sources: Fourth Judicial Circuit State Attorney — appeals process · Florida Rules 3.851–3.853 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 · § 2253 · Florida Constitution, Article IV § 8 · Florida Statutes §§ 922.052, 922.06 and 922.07. The State Attorney’s flowchart is used for its process explanation, not its older population statistics.
Why can a case take decades?
The total can reflect several rounds of litigation rather than one appeal sitting unresolved. Transcripts and public records must be assembled; new counsel may investigate facts outside the original record; expert evidence and hearings may be needed; and decisions can be appealed or sent back for further proceedings. A reversal can require another trial or sentencing hearing. Later evidence or a qualifying change in law can create a different claim, subject to procedural limits.
Some issues also depend on present circumstances. Competence to be executed concerns the person’s mental capacity at the time execution is proposed. An execution-method claim may concern the protocol then in use. A person can have completed initial review while a different, legally available claim remains to be resolved. Age or illness alone does not automatically cancel a death sentence.
There are deadlines and limits
Florida Rule 3.851 generally requires an initial motion within one year after the conviction and sentence become final as the rule defines that term, with specified exceptions. Federal law also generally imposes a one-year habeas filing period, with statutory starting points and tolling while a properly filed state collateral application is pending. These are filing rules, not a promise that courts will finish every case within one year. Successive claims face additional restrictions.
Florida’s Constitution sets a five-year target for state capital appeals and collateral attacks, while allowing a court to explain noncompliance through an order with specific findings. Section 922.052 also contains a 30-day warrant requirement tied to the clerk’s certification and completed clemency, and directs execution within 180 days of the warrant. Those provisions do not create a universal deadline measured from the original sentencing date.
Timing and later claims: Rule 3.851(d), (e) and committee notes · 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b), (d) · Florida Constitution, Article I § 16(b)(10) · § 922.052 and competency proceedings under § 922.07.
The elapsed time has consequences for victims’ families and prisoners alike. Assessing the delay in a particular case requires its procedural history: what was pending, which court was considering it, whether relief was granted and whether a valid execution warrant and any stay were in effect.
Hurst, Poole and Florida’s changing death-sentence rules
Legal context as of October 23, 2026. Florida’s rules changed through two different Hurst decisions, the later State v. Poole ruling, and legislation. The central distinction is between eligibility for death and the decision to recommend death.
January 12, 2016: Hurst v. Florida requires jury fact-finding
In Hurst v. Florida, 577 U.S. 92 (2016), the U.S. Supreme Court held that Florida’s sentencing system violated the Sixth Amendment because the judge independently made the factual findings necessary to authorize death. A jury’s advisory recommendation could not substitute for the jury finding the necessary facts. The decision addressed who must make those findings; it did not itself establish Florida’s later requirement of a unanimous final death recommendation. Read the U.S. Supreme Court opinion (PDF)
October 14, 2016: Hurst v. State adds broader unanimity requirements
On remand, the Florida Supreme Court went further in Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016). It required unanimity on the aggravating factors proved beyond a reasonable doubt, their sufficiency to justify death, whether they outweighed the mitigating circumstances, and the final recommendation of death. Aggravating factors are statutory circumstances that support a harsher punishment; mitigation includes evidence supporting a sentence less than death.
Hurst’s jury had recommended death 7–5. The court found the sentencing error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and ordered a new penalty phase. That remedy concerned punishment and did not erase his murder conviction. Read Hurst v. State
2017 legislation: Florida then placed jury unanimity for a death recommendation into its sentencing statutes through SB 280, effective March 13, 2017. Florida Senate: SB 280 and legislative history
January 23, 2020: State v. Poole retreats from the broader Hurst rule
In State v. Poole, 297 So. 3d 487 (Fla. 2020), the Florida Supreme Court retained the requirement that a jury unanimously find at least one statutory aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt. It withdrew Hurst v. State’s broader constitutional requirements concerning sufficiency, weighing and the unanimous death recommendation.
The majority treated finding an aggravator as an eligibility determination, while weighing aggravation against mitigation and selecting punishment involved judgment rather than additional facts requiring unanimous findings. Poole’s jury had recommended death 11–1; unanimous guilt verdicts established an aggravating circumstance. The court ordered his death sentence reinstated after a lower court had granted a new penalty phase under Hurst.
Justice Jorge Labarga dissented, arguing that abandoning unanimous death recommendations removed an important safeguard. Poole did not itself repeal the 2017 unanimity statute. It changed the constitutional interpretation underlying that law. Read State v. Poole, including the dissent (PDF)
April 20, 2023 onward: eight jurors can recommend death
SB 450 separately changed the statutory recommendation threshold to at least eight of twelve jurors, effective April 20, 2023. Florida Senate: SB 450, Chapter 2023-23
Under the current capital-felony sentencing statute, when a sentencing jury is used:
- Eligibility: the jury must unanimously find at least one statutory aggravating factor proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Without that finding, death is unavailable.
- Recommendation: eight or more jurors voting for death produces a death recommendation; fewer than eight produces a life-without-parole recommendation.
- Judge’s decision: a life recommendation binds the judge. After a death recommendation, the judge may impose life without parole or death, with the required written findings.
An 8–4 death recommendation is therefore possible today even though the aggravating-factor finding still requires unanimity. These are penalty-phase rules, separate from the guilt verdict. Florida Statutes § 921.141(2)–(4)
Why these changes matter for older cases and lengthy appeals
The 2016 retroactivity decisions in Asay and Mosley distinguished sentences already final before Ring v. Arizona (June 24, 2002) from those becoming final afterward. Asay denied retroactive Hurst relief to the former group; Mosley extended it to the latter. The relevant date was sentence finality, rather than simply the crime date or first sentencing date. Asay v. State · Mosley v. State
What this means: review can involve whether a new rule applies to an older case, whether an error was harmless, and whether an earlier resentencing order remains effective after precedent changes. That helps explain how sentencing litigation can span years. Relief depends on each case’s record and procedural history; these changes do not automatically vacate every older sentence. The eight-juror rule also does not eliminate appellate review or establish an execution deadline.
Additional reporting: Death Penalty Information Center, Florida Supreme Court Retracts Jury Unanimity Requirement, Reinstates Non-Unanimous Death Sentence. Originally published January 24, 2020; updated March 14, 2025; accessed October 23, 2026. The 2025 date is the article’s update date; the Poole ruling discussed above occurred in 2020.
HB 903: Florida expands its fallback execution authority
Legal analysis as of October 23, 2026. The supplied document is the enrolled version of CS/CS/HB 903 (2025), “Corrections”, a broad corrections bill. Governor Ron DeSantis approved it on May 22, 2025; it became Chapter 2025-81, Laws of Florida, effective July 1, 2025. It passed the House 83–33 and the Senate 26–11. Official history and votes.
What changed in the execution statutes?
| Provision | Change made by HB 903 | Practical significance |
|---|---|---|
| Section 5: § 922.10 | Adds another method, subject to § 922.105, to the statute listing electrocution and lethal injection. | Expressly links the general execution statute to the expanded fallback authority. |
| Section 6: § 922.105(3) | Adds a trigger when obtaining necessary lethal-injection chemicals becomes impossible or impractical; changes the fallback wording from “any constitutional method of execution” to “a method not deemed unconstitutional.” | Extends the fallback beyond the specified court rulings that already triggered it. |
These amendments appear on pages 15–16 of the 56-page enrolled bill. The wording distinguishes a method that has not been ruled unconstitutional from one receiving an affirmative constitutional ruling. That distinction does not settle the legality of a particular procedure or prevent a court challenge. Read Sections 5–6 in the enrolled bill.
What remains in the law?
The 2026 text of § 922.105 still makes lethal injection the default, subject to the statutory opportunity to elect electrocution. The fallback is conditional. The statute also retains its existing rule that invalidating an execution method does not, by itself, reduce the death sentence: the sentence remains in force pending lawful execution. HB 903 amended subsection (3), rather than creating that sentence-preservation rule.
How does this relate to Hurst, Poole and execution delays?
Jaded Evidence analysis: The Hurst/Poole discussion above concerns the findings and jury rules required to impose a death sentence. HB 903 addresses carrying out that sentence. It does not amend the eight-of-twelve death-recommendation threshold or replace direct appeal, post-conviction review, federal habeas proceedings or judicial stays. Its fallback could address one obstacle—access to execution drugs—but the bill alone cannot establish why Florida’s execution totals rose or how much time a particular case will take. An alternative procedure could itself become the subject of litigation.
Other provisions: prisoner lawsuits, treatment and oversight
The bill also sets a one-year limitations period for specified conditions-of-confinement actions, with occurrence/discovery language and stated exceptions; requires exhaustion of available administrative remedies; provides for dismissal of legally deficient confinement claims; and limits specified mental-or-emotional-injury actions without physical injury or a qualifying sexual act. This is not a blanket one-year deadline for every death-row appeal. Section 95.11(6)(f) expressly excepts a petition challenging a criminal conviction. Sections 1–3.
Other changes restructure inmate mental-health placement and treatment, consent and emergency-care procedures, advance directives and health-care proxies; revise consecutive firearm sentences; and allow the Governor and Cabinet to select Florida Commission on Offender Review members directly. These provisions concern the wider prison system. Senate committee summary.
Cost implications: The House’s final analysis describes the fiscal impact on state government as indeterminate. It supplies no reliable per-execution savings estimate and no annual death-row housing figure; it therefore does not change the separately sourced inmate-cost estimate below. House final bill analysis, May 30, 2025.
Primary documents: Open the complete enrolled bill (PDF) · § 922.10 · § 922.105.
Source document: Florida’s 2013 execution procedures
Florida Department of Corrections — Execution by Lethal Injection Procedures
Signed September 9, 2013 · 17-page court filing · State v. Marshall Lee Gore, Miami-Dade County, Case F90-11445.
Open the full PDF · Download the document
The file includes the filing notice, records-repository transmittal, Secretary Michael D. Crews’s certification and the department’s procedures. It documents responsibilities, preparation, monitoring and post-execution reporting. The hosted searchable copy preserves all 17 page images of the supplied document.
Preview the 17-page source document
Open the PDF in its own window for full-page reading or download.
Ten longest-standing Florida death-row cases
These ten people appear on FDC’s October 23 roster, the latest roster displayed when checked for this October 23, 2026 report. They are ranked by the first death sentence in the case. The elapsed years include periods involving reversals and resentencing; they are not a calculation of uninterrupted time under one valid sentence.
- 1
William Lee Thompson
- First death sentence
- June 24, 1976
- Elapsed time
- 50 years
Appeal / execution status
Warrant withdrawn; no active execution date. The Florida Supreme Court denied his successive postconviction appeal, habeas petition and requested stay on October 8, 2026. His October 13 execution warrant was subsequently withdrawn amid competency proceedings; the death sentence remains in place. October 8 opinion · warrant record
- 2
William Thomas “Tommy” Zeigler Jr.
- First death sentence
- July 16, 1976
- Elapsed time
- 50 years
Appeal / execution status
Pending postconviction appeal confirmed. Florida Supreme Court case SC2026-0617 is listed as open, with 2026 briefing on his DNA-related challenge to the convictions. An open appeal does not itself establish a stay. Current appellate docket
- 3
Henry Perry Sireci Jr.
- First death sentence
- November 15, 1976
- Elapsed time
- 49 years
Appeal / execution status
DNA-testing proceedings; present disposition unconfirmed. On July 1, 2022, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the order allowing evidence to be released for DNA/fingerprint testing. That ruling authorized testing; it did not vacate the conviction. A later testing result, merits ruling or currently pending appeal could not be verified for this report. Order and procedural history
- 4
James Franklin Rose
- First death sentence
- May 13, 1977
- Elapsed time
- 49 years
Appeal / execution status
Initial state review completed; current pending status unconfirmed. The Florida Supreme Court clerk’s October 4, 2013 certification reported that he had completed initial state postconviction proceedings but did not appear to have timely filed a federal habeas petition. This is a historical procedural finding, not proof that every possible present claim is barred. Clerk’s certification, page 5
- 5
Paul William Scott
- First death sentence
- December 14, 1979
- Elapsed time
- 46 years
Appeal / execution status
Cited review concluded; current pending status unconfirmed. The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in case 18-7569 on April 1, 2019, after the Florida Supreme Court’s 2018 decision. No newer pending proceeding was verified. U.S. Supreme Court docket
- 6
Kenneth Darcell Quince
- First death sentence
- October 21, 1980
- Elapsed time
- 46 years
Appeal / execution status
Cited review concluded; current pending status unconfirmed. The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in case 18-5018 on October 1, 2018. No newer pending proceeding was verified. U.S. Supreme Court docket
- 7
Ian Deco Lightbourne
- First death sentence
- May 1, 1981
- Elapsed time
- 45 years
Appeal / execution status
Cited review concluded; current pending status unconfirmed. The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in case 18-5012 on October 1, 2018, following denial of his Hurst-related challenge. No newer pending proceeding was verified. U.S. Supreme Court docket
- 8
Omar Blanco
- First death sentence
- June 21, 1982
- Elapsed time
- 44 years
Appeal / execution status
Cited postconviction appeal denied; current pending status unconfirmed. On July 19, 2018, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed denial of his fifth postconviction motion, addressing intellectual-disability and Hurst claims. No newer pending proceeding was verified. Court opinion, SC17-330
- 9
Milford Wade Byrd
- First death sentence
- August 13, 1982
- Elapsed time
- 44 years
Appeal / execution status
Cited review concluded; current pending status unconfirmed. The Florida Supreme Court rejected his Hurst claim in 2018. The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in case 18-5441 on October 9, 2018. No newer pending proceeding was verified. U.S. Supreme Court docket
- 10
Milo Andrew Rose
- First death sentence
- July 8, 1983
- Elapsed time
- 43 years
Appeal / execution status
Postconviction waiver upheld in 2018; current pending status unconfirmed. On July 19, 2018, the Florida Supreme Court upheld dismissal of his postconviction proceedings and discharge of counsel at his request. That dated ruling should not be treated as confirmation of his present representation or every later filing. Court opinion, SC17-878
Ranked by first death sentence. Elapsed years are measured through October 23, 2026. Each card retains the linked court record and its date.
Sentence dates and ranking method
The roster’s “date received” is a prison-admission date and can precede the capital offense. It is not used as the start of time on death row. First-sentence dates and later resentencings also differ. For Thompson, the archived legislative case history records June 24, 1976; the roster displays his September 1978 sentence. For Blanco, the archived case history records June 21, 1982; the roster’s sentence field displays a different date. The original sentencing histories determine their placement here.
The resulting ranking measures the age of the capital cases of people still listed on death row. It does not rank age, number of appeals, strength of a claim or priority for an execution warrant. Completed calendar years are shown; the ranking uses the full starting dates.
Roster and sentence sources: FDC current roster · Thompson original sentencing history · Blanco original sentencing history · Milo Rose sentencing history. Archived Commission on Capital Cases files supply historical dates, not present appeal status.
Estimated annual cost per inmate
| Fiscal year | Annual cost per inmate | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| 2024–25 | $34,898 | FDC cost supplied to the Legislature |
| 2025–26 | $35,875 | Inflation-based projection |
| 2026–27 | $36,843 | Inflation-based projection |
The benchmark includes security, health care and education services at state-operated facilities. It excludes debt service and indirect/administrative expenses; it also does not count prosecution, defense, courts or capital appeals. Individual costs vary with medical needs, custody and litigation. Applying $36,843 to 233 people gives an illustrative $8.58 million annual operating equivalent, not an audited death-row expenditure.
Source: Florida Legislature, Office of Economic and Demographic Research — 2026 DOC per diem and bed costs, adopted February 9, 2026. Monthly equivalent is annual cost ÷ 12; population illustration is 233 × $36,843.
Death-row housing and legal costs: dated benchmarks
A 2008 Commission on Capital Cases analysis, using FY 2004–05 institutional data, placed death-row incarceration at about $25,071 per prisoner annually. A separate 2002 efficiency analysis used an estimated $30,000 per case per year for Capital Collateral Regional Counsel. That counsel figure covers a particular stage of representation, not the entire trial and appeals process.
These figures describe older cost structures. They are not inflation-adjusted, are not 2026 audited costs and are not added to the current prison projection to create an unsupported total. A current, comprehensive death-row estimate would require contemporary spending and caseload data from corrections, prosecutors, defense agencies and courts. Annual custody cost alone does not establish the fiscal effect of an execution.
Historical sources: 2008 death-row housing analysis · 2002 collateral-counsel analysis
How these figures are calculated
- Completed: executions that occurred; the last included Florida event is October 20, 2026.
- Scheduled: future active dates, checked October 23; they can change.
- Population: the dated FDC roster, not a cumulative total or active-warrant count.
- Shares: Jaded Evidence calculations from completed state and U.S. totals; percentages rounded to one decimal.
- Costs: the Legislature’s FY 2026–27 statewide prison operating projection is a proxy, not a measured death-row average. Historical housing and counsel benchmarks retain their original dates.
- Time: the top-ten ranking measures elapsed time since the first death sentence in each case, including later reversals and resentencings. It does not measure uninterrupted time under one legally valid sentence. Years are completed calendar years as of October 23, 2026.
The underlying cases involve victims, surviving families, condemned prisoners and irreversible state action. Counts describe the scale and concentration of executions; by themselves, they do not establish deterrence, correctness of a conviction or the full fiscal effect of a policy.
Source library and related coverage
- Florida Department of Corrections — execution list, 1976 to present.
- FDC — October 20, 2026 Reaves execution update.
- FDC — current death-row roster.
- DPI — 2025 execution list and year-end execution analysis.
- DPI — 2026 execution list and October 20 fact sheet.
- DPI — 2026 death-warrant outcomes.
- Florida Supreme Court — Jesse Guardado case notice and Thomas M. Overton case notice.
- Tennessee governor — Gary Sutton reprieve, October 7, 2026.
- Suncoast Searchlight — governor-tenure comparison.
- Florida Legislature — 2026 prison operating-cost model.
- Florida Legislature — 2008 housing-cost analysis and 2002 efficiency analysis.
Related Jaded Evidence coverage: Christa Pike: execution litigation · Christa Pike: medical and legal update · Nidal Hasan: planned execution and public scrutiny.
Leave a Reply