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 Zo 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 Courts 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 Trotties 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 States counsel included the following
observations by Judge Elrod concerning trial counsel:
So we dont look at that just fresh ourselves and say, Gosh, he shouldve, he shouldve
argued, um, self-defense because th-the second, the fact that Titus shot him, he shouldve
really argued self-defense, that was foolish, we cant 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 didnt
prepare much... but that still doesnt mean you lose, but, I mean, this is not Theres 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
Courts 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 courts 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 Courts 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
Trotties death sentence, and the state court decision applied the wrong law in evaluating
Trotties 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 Trotties claim that his death sentence resulted from Texass 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).



3
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court should stay Trotties execution pending
consideration and disposition of his petition for a writ of certiorari.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: September 9, 2014 __s/__________________________
Los Angeles, CA Zo Dolan
7083 Hollywood Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90028
(347) 301-5180
zdolan@gmail.com

David Adler
6750 West Loop South
Suite 120
Bellaire, Texas 77401
(713) 666-7576
(713) 665-7070 (Fax)