D. Todd Doss, Esq.
Mr. Doss has practiced criminal law for thirty years since his graduation from Tulane University Law School. During those thirty years his enduring focus has been dedicated to defending persons facing prosecution and defending individuals facing the death penalty. Mr. Doss has practiced law with the Office of the Federal Defender since 2011 and leads the capital unit.
During the last thirty years Mr. Doss has defended thousands of clients charged with crimes ranging from a simple traffic ticket to death penalty cases before the United States Supreme Court. Mr. Doss is licensed to practice law before the Supreme Court of the United States, the United States Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and the United States District Courts for the Middle, Southern, and Northern District of Florida and by the Florida Bar to practice in all Florida state courts.
Mr. Doss' dedicated service to indigent clients and criminal law have earned him the Florida Bar President's 2011 Pro Bono Service Award for the Third Judicial Circuit of Florida and the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyer's President's Award in 2008 and 2011. This service has been further recognized by Mr. Doss chairing and organizing the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyer's Annual death penalty seminar from 2011-2015 and speaking throughout the country at over a dozen conferences and seminars on criminal law and death penalty topics.
- Juris Doctor, Tulane University Law School
- Florida Bar
- Supreme Court of the United States
- United States Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
- United States District Courts for the Middle, Southern and Northern District of Florida
Hurst v. Florida, 136 S.Ct. 616 (2016), was pro bono trial attorney at capital re-sentencing for this case. Raised and properly preserved the issue that prevailed as the Supreme Court of the United States declared that Florida's death penalty sentencing scheme violated the Sixth and Eighth Amendment in light of Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002).
Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573 (2006), personally argued before the Supreme Court of the United States and obtained a 9-0 reversal of the lower court's dismissal of Mr. Hill's Eighth Amendment Claims filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court held Mr. Hill's claim that Florida's lethal injection protocol violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment was cognizable in a § 1983 action and was not properly characterized as a second or successive habeas.
Muhammad v. Tucker, 905 F. Supp. 1281, S.D. Fla., Nov. 9, 2012, reversed, 733 F.3d 1065, (11th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 893 (2013), then U.S. District Court Judge Adalberto Jordan held that the State of Florida violated Mr. Muhammad's Confrontation Clause rights at the 1996 re-sentencing as required by then existing Supreme Court precedent of Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (1980). Subsequently, the Eleventh Circuit reversed Judge Jordan's decision.
Crist v. Florida Ass'n of Criminal Defense Lawyer's, 978 So.2d 134 (Fla. 2008), served as co-counsel with Sonya Rudenstine in a challenge pursuant to a writ of quo warranto contending that Governor Crist exceeded his constitutional authority by appointing five regional counsel to handle criminal cases when a public defender has a conflict. The state circuit court enjoined the regional counsel from accepting new cases pursuant to the act. The Florida Supreme Court reversed and found the Governor's actions constitutional.
Represented the family of Angel Diaz in Tampa, Florida before the Lethal Injection Commission empaneled by Governor Bush to investigate Mr. Diaz's botched execution in December 2006.
Orme v. State, 896 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 2005), argued Mr. Orme's case before the Florida Supreme Court and obtained penalty phase relief due to trial counsel's ineffective assistance in foregoing investigation and presentation of Mr. Orme's bi-polar disorder.
Busby v. State, 894 So.2d 88 (Fla. 2004), as trial counsel for Mr. Busby, raised and properly preserved error pursuant to Trotter v. State, 576 So.2d 691 (Fla. 1991), during voir dire in Mr. Busby's capital trial. Justice Pariente noted that as of the date of the opinion only five of the seventeen cases considered by the Florida Supreme Court had been properly preserved and only Mr. Busby's case had been reversed.