Williams v. Humphrey, No. 4:2012cv00106 - Document 81 (S.D. Ga. 2019)

Court Description: ORDER granting 79 Motion Requesting Ruling on Procedural Issues. The Court finds that the Petitioner will not be permitted to brief any claim raised in Claim II, Claim III, or Claim IV. The Court finds that Petitioner will not be permitted to br ief many of his claims related to alleged errors made by his trial counsel. Petitioner will be permitted to brief claims related only to his trial counsel's failure to investigate and present mitigation evidence related to Petitioner's background and mental health. Petitioner may also brief his claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise this error on direct appeal. Signed by Judge William T. Moore, Jr on 4/3/19. (jrb)

Download PDF

Williams v. Humphrey Doc. 81 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISION JOSEPH WILLIAMS, Petitioner, CASE NO. CV412-106 V. WARDEN CARL HUMPHREY, Respondent. ORDER In 2004, Petitioner Joseph Williams was convicted and sentenced to death by the Superior Court of Chatham County for the murder of Michael Deal- After the completion of his direct appeal and state habeas court proceedings, Petitioner Williams filed a petition for habeas corpus in this Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his conviction and death sentence on a number of grounds. Presently before the Court is the parties' briefing on procedural default, cause and prejudice, and fundamental miscarriage of justice. Petitioner is DIRECTED that he may brief his claims in his upcoming merits brief in accordance with this order.^ ^ Accordingly, Respondent's Motion Requesting Ruling on Procedural Issues is GRANTED. (Doc. 79.) Dockets.Justia.com

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.