THOMASVILLE — In denying Roy Winnen Bridges’ motion for a new trial, a Superior Court judge’s order says the defendant did not demonstrate alleged prosecutorial misconduct requiring a reversal of two murder convictions.

Bridges was convicted in early 2000 of brutally murdering his wife, JoAnne Bridges, in her early 60s, and his wife’s elderly mother, Christine Ulmer, in her 80s, at the latter’s Whigham home the night after Christmas 1997.

He was sentenced to life in prison and is being held at Men’s State Prison in Hardwick.

The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the convictions on all but one issue and remanded the case to Grady County Superior Court, the trial court, for a hearing on ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

Before a decision was reached on the issue, Bridges filed a motion for a new trial based upon alleged newly discovered evidence that in addition to a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, asked for DNA testing of certain evidence.

Wallace Cato, chief judge of the South Georgia Judicial Circuit and who presided at the Bridges trial, recused himself from the case. Gary C. McCorvey, a senior Superior Court judge, was assigned to the case.

Hearings were held in 2006 and 2008, and the court considered evidence presented at the hearings, as well as briefs, arguments and citations submitted by counsel.

McCorvey’s order says Bridges must prove trial counsel’s performance was deficient and that there was a reasonable probability the trial result would have been different if not for the deficient performance.

“ ... It must be remembered that the defendant must overcome the ‘strong presumption’ that counsel’s performance fell within a wide range of reasonable professional conduct,” the order says.

Bridges was represented at trial by Gil Murrah of Bainbridge and Clyde Taylor of Tallahassee, Fla.

McCorvey found that Bridges failed to show trial counsel’s performance was deficient by not objecting to the court’s pre-voir dire charge, to Bridges’ absence from the courtroom during the charge and to testimony about a life insurance policy.

Also, the order says, Bridges did not show counsel was deficient in failing to have DNA evidence retested.

However, McCorvey found that Bridges showed trial counsel’s performance was “in light of all circumstances ... outside the range of professionally competent assistance” with respect to the following claims:

• Defense counsel’s failure to object to improper argument — the prosecuting attorney’s use of the phrase “I think” as an expression of his personal opinion.

• Defense counsel’s failure to object to the admission of tape-recorded conversations between Bridges and a jailhouse snitch, alleged violations to the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

In counsel’s failure to object to the use of “I think,” Bridges did not cite a case in which a Georgia court found the error so egregious as to require a new trial, according to the order.

“This court finds that the admission of the tape-recorded conversations between the defendant and Thomas/Lusk likewise violated the defendant’s rights,” the order says.

The document continued: “The most plausible reason the former district attorney utilized tape recordings he should have known were inadmissible was his likely knowledge and fear that the jury” held the belief criminal informants “are cut from untrustworthy cloth ... “

Brown Moseley, former South Georgia Judicial Circuit district attorney, prosecuted the Bridges case.

The district attorney and law enforcement officers in the case were justified in verifying the jailhouse snitch’s report to them about the defendant’s statements and actions in fulfilling their duty not to present false testimony to the jury, the order says.

The recorded conversations verified the snitch was telling the truth, McCorvey wrote.

“ ... The use of these tape recordings was error, and the trial counsel’s performance was deficient because of counsel’s failure to object to their use. This court cannot imagine any reasonable and legitimate trial strategy that would allow the state to bolster the testimony of a jailhouse snitch and prove beyond all doubt that he was telling the truth when he said the defendant fabricated his defense,” the order says.

According to the order, there is no reasonable probability the trial result would have been different if defense counsel had objected to the admission of tape recordings and the trial court had sustained the objection.



Senior reporter Patti Dozier can be reached at (229) 226-2400, ext. 220.