Convicted double-murderer Jamie Ray Mills appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in an attempt to halt his execution scheduled to take place tonight.

Jamie Mills, his common-law wife, JoAnn Mills, and a local drug dealer, Benjie Howe, were arrested and charged with capital murder in the 2004 deaths of Floyd Hill, 87, and his wife Vera Hill, 72.

The Hills were robbed and beaten to death with a machete, a tire iron and a ball peen hammer.

The murder weapons and a pair of work pants containing the Hills' DNA and bearing Jamie Mills' name were found in the trunk of Jamie Mills' car.

A jury voted 11-1 to impose the death penalty on Jamie Mills. His execution by lethal injection is scheduled for 6 p.m. on Thursday at Holman Correctional Facility in Atmore. JoAnn Mills pleaded guilty to murder and received a life sentence with the possibility of parole. The State dropped the case against Howe.

RELATED: Last-minute efforts underway to halt Thursday execution of convicted double-murderer Jamie Mills after 11th Circuit rejects appeal

Jamie Mills has already unsuccessfully appealed to a federal court and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Mills has repeatedly asserted that his wife had a secret deal with prosecutors, assuring she would avoid the death penalty in exchange for her testimony against her husband.

Both U.S. District Judge Scott Coogler and a three-judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that Jamie Mills' claims were "untimely" and lacked substantive evidence.

In the SCOTUS filing, Jamie Mills' attorneys reassert the claims of prosecutorial misconduct on the part of the State's attorneys in lying to the judge and jury about a deal between the State and JoAnn Mills. Jamie Mills also asserts in the filing that he was framed by Howe, accusing him of planting the murder weapons and blood-stained clothes in the trunk of Mills' car.

"Mr. Mills' case presents significant questions implicating the reliability of his capital conviction and death sentence and whether jurists of reason could debate that he is entitled to Rule 60 process," the request reads. "This Court should utilize its historic ability to stay the State's proceedings against Mr. Mills to ensure he is not executed based on a deeply flawed and unfair process."

The file for an execution stay repeats the claims of prosecutorial misconduct, claiming the State has denied Jamie Mills an opportunity to have his case heard.  

"It cannot be that the State may conceal critical evidence throughout all stages of capital proceedings—trial, appeals, state and federal postconviction—and then rely on procedural hurdles and arguments of delay to prevent Mr. Mills from obtaining any process on this claim," the filing continues. "The State has delayed a substantive review of this issue, not Mr. Mills."

In its response, state attorneys explicitly refute the alleged misconduct while stating that JoAnn Mills' testimony was not necessary to convict anyway.

"[Jamie] Mills is guilty," the State said in its response. "After seventeen years, he offers a questionable affidavit that at best could be used to impeach one witness, but the prosecution had a trove of physical evidence, too."

It continues, "Mills asks this Court to ignore the untimeliness of his claims and his filings in favor of finding the existence of a seventeen-year fraud perpetrated by the State, based solely on an affidavit he procured after the State moved for his execution, which itself is based on an erroneous attorney fee declaration. As Mills has shown no substantial likelihood of success on his claims, the Court should deny his cert petition and stay application. And because of Mills's dilatory tactics, his stay application should be denied on equitable grounds as well."

To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email

Don't miss out! Subscribe to our newsletter and get our top stories every weekday morning.