This overview focuses on the claims raised in Mr. Reaves’s September 27 postconviction motion filed in the circuit court in Indian River County.

Florida plans to execute William Reaves on October 20, 2026, for the 1986 murder of Deputy Richard Raczkoski. Mr. Reaves has acknowledged responsibility for the shooting and repeatedly expressed remorse, including an apology to Deputy Raczkoski’s family at his sentencing.

Mr. Reaves is a Vietnam combat veteran who returned home with PTSD and developed a severe substance use disorder. His jury never heard the full details of his combat experience or the trauma he carried home. His attorney had never tried a capital case and was required to proceed without co-counsel. The jury recommended death by a vote of 10–2.

His motion raises three central issues: newly discovered evidence of police corruption undermines the State’s key witness, Florida denied him meaningful participation in clemency, and lethal injection would expose him to severe pain and suffering.

New evidence undermines the testimony used to establish premeditation

Mr. Reaves has never denied shooting Deputy Raczkoski, but a central question at trial was whether the shooting was premeditated.

The State relied on Eugene Hinton, who claimed Mr. Reaves described a deliberate killing and appeared clearheaded afterward. Hinton later acknowledged that Mr. Reaves had been using drugs and was severely impaired that night.

In January 2026, Mr. Reaves’s attorneys learned new information about alleged bribes paid by a drug dealer to deputies involved in the investigation. They argue that these corrupt relationships helped protect the dealer while officers influenced Hinton’s changing account of the shooting.

His attorneys contend that this evidence undermines confidence in Hinton’s testimony and could have led to a conviction for a lesser offense or a life sentence. They also argue that denied requests for records have prevented them from fully investigating the misconduct.

Florida denied Mr. Reaves meaningful participation in the clemency process

According to the motion, Mr. Reaves’s appointed clemency attorney met with him approximately five minutes before his interview and did not prepare him for the proceedings.

Afterward, the attorney refused to provide the written submission made on Mr. Reaves’s behalf, despite repeated requests from Mr. Reaves, his family, and his postconviction attorneys.

Mr. Reaves also has severe hearing loss, even with hearing aids. Without a transcript of his interview, he could not determine whether he had misunderstood questions or needed to clarify his answers. Without his attorney’s submission, he could not check whether the information presented was accurate or complete.

His attorneys argue that these barriers deprived him of a meaningful opportunity to make his case for mercy.

Lethal injection would expose him to severe suffering

Mr. Reaves’s attorneys argue that Florida’s three-drug protocol could leave him conscious while paralyzed, experiencing suffocation and intense pain.

His severe hearing impairment creates an additional risk: if staff call his name to assess consciousness, his failure to respond could be mistaken for unconsciousness.

The motion also argues that the first drug may wear off before death, while the paralytic prevents him from communicating distress. As required under the Baze-Glossip standard, his attorneys identify alternative methods they contend would substantially reduce these risks.

Reaves is now expected to file appeals at the Florida Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court in advance of the October 20 execution date.