James “Erny” Hitchcock was sentenced to death for the 1976 murder of Cindy Driggers in Orange County, Florida — who has maintained his innocence for nearly 50 years. As the state moves forward with his execution, new evidence and unresolved questions are casting serious doubt on whether he was the person who committed that crime.
A newly filed motion on behalf of Erny asks the court to stop his execution, scheduled for April 30, 2026, and to take a closer look at a case marked by unanswered questions and missing information. The filing seeks a stay of execution, to vacate his conviction and death sentence, and at minimum, an evidentiary hearing on new claims that go to the heart of whether Florida is preparing to execute the right person.
At its core, the motion raises two urgent issues: the State’s refusal to provide critical records about its execution process, and new evidence supporting Hitchcock’s claim of actual innocence.
A System Without Transparency
As Florida moves forward with this execution, state agencies are refusing to release key information about the lethal injection process. Despite complying with Florida’s public records laws, Erny’s legal team has been denied access to records that could determine whether the method of execution would violate the Constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
Without these records, Erny is being denied a meaningful opportunity to challenge how the State plans to take his life, a basic safeguard that should exist in any system claiming to deliver justice.
A Conviction Under New Scrutiny
At the same time, the motion presents a stark and deeply troubling claim: that James “Erny” Hitchcock is innocent of the murder for which he has been sentenced to die.
Erny has acknowledged that he was with Cindy Driggers on the night of her death and has accepted responsibility for unlawful sexual conduct. But that is not what he was sentenced to death for.
Florida condemned him for murder. Now, new evidence raises serious doubt that he was the person who committed that crime.
Two living witnesses are prepared to testify that Erny’s brother, Cindy’s stepfather, confessed to the murder. That same individual has a documented history of violence against women, including strangulation — behavior that aligns with the circumstances of Cindy’s death.
Meanwhile, the case against Erny relied on forensic methods that have since been discredited. Hair microscopy — once presented as evidence — is now widely recognized as scientifically unreliable without DNA confirmation. And in this case, critical physical evidence that could have been tested for DNA has been lost or destroyed.
The Stakes Could Not Be Higher
This is the distinction at the heart of this case: James “Erny” Hitchcock has acknowledged wrongdoing, but not the crime for which Florida plans to execute him.
As the state moves forward, it is doing so while withholding key information, relying on outdated science, and facing credible evidence pointing to another perpetrator. These are not small procedural concerns — they are fundamental questions about fairness, accuracy, and whether the system is working at all.