Mississippi’s rush to unalive

On June 25, 2025, Mississippi murdered Richard Jordan, a man whose execution should have sparked a conversation about fairness, justice, and the irreversible nature of capital punishment. He lived within MDOC for the better part 49/50 years, and over 40 of those years he was stuck in a steel cage in solitary confinement. This day has arrived once again, and the Mississippi State Supreme Court has scheduled a killing date for Charles Crawford, who has served over three decades, with two-plus decades inside a steel cage in solitary confinement. After decades of rotting away from young men ages of 20 to become old men of 60,and 70 facing unimaginable suffering. When Mississippi sets a date for spectacle. The crucifixion on the cross moves swiftly , without sufficient scrutiny.

The State’s preparation to execute another man, another Human within a mere three-month span from the last execution, only illustrates a system operating with alarming haste. It begs the question: Are we truly exercising justice, or are we perpetuating a cycle of violence? Each killing by the State of Mississippi is a life snatched from existence, a soul unalived.

Mississippi has a dark and troubling history concerning its legal judgments. Three men, Curtis Flowers, Eddie Howard, and Sherwood Brown, were exonerated between 2017-2021, after spending decades in prison for crimes they did not commit. Their stories conjure up ghosts from a haunted past filled with imperfections and miscalculations.

With monumental errors of this magnitude, should Mississippi persist in executing individuals? Retribution administered with a desire for Revenge carries a heavy weight of stolen human life.

We must confront this reality. The death penalty should not be an option without rigorous investigation of individual cases and reform that corrects and eliminates those processes found to be flawed . Mississippi must perform a thorough examination of its criminal justice policies and practices. Wrongful conviction remains a stark reminder that we need to be vigilantly aware of our protections for life. Not hastily blind in purpose and cause to unalive it.

I will finish on this note. Mississippi must redefine justice, reform its practices, and consider an alternative path. The death penalty should not be a default answer to violence but a topic for serious introspection and ethical questioning.Mississippi must pause and reflect on its actions and their implications.

Thank you.

Joesph Patri Brown

Charles Crawford’s legal team are working hard for a ‘Stay of Execution’ in order for a review of his case to take place.

Below are copies of their filings which we received from his team. Their press release update can be found on our News page.

Filed – Crawford Cert Petition

20251001153738434_Crawford Application for Stay of Execution

Devin Bennett – ‘Injustice, not justice’

It is truly sad when injustice, corruption and evils which are behind it, have become such a common occurrence in our legal system that we accept it as ” well, that’s just the way it is. ” It truly grieves me when I here individuals say, ” Our justice system isn’t perfect but it works.”

We all understand our justice system can never be perfect, as it is made up of imperfect people. However, what we cannot understand, and what we must not accept, is when the remedies set in place to access, and correct inevitable mistakes, and unfortunately, the willful, unethical and immoral acts, committed by some of these imperfect people, are being removed and or arbitrarily ignored.

The state of man is growing increasingly wicked. We can see this by the inevitable result of corruption we see in the world. What we see in this world, specifically , America, is but the effect of the cause, which is the evil in the heart of man.

As a result, when a prosecutor, defense attorney, or any person who holds an official position in the justice system, violate the ethical and moral standard set , it is the accused who suffers, and in death penalty cases that suffering can and will prove fatal.

Many of these problems, although at the core they are moral and ethical, they are very much political. To be clear here, I’m not talking about mistakes that are made , although mistakes that are the result of indifference do qualify. I’m talking about the agenda of these officials, the prosecutors, politicians, and police.

Without question, much of what we see are due to these individuals trying to advance, or protect, their political aspirations. When your desire for prestige, position or power requires that you to compromise the principles you swore to keep, you have in fact  become the problem.

We must accept that a lot of what is wrong with the justice system is found in the individuals who make up this system. A system is only as good as the individuals who run it. This “good ol boy” mentality and system here in the South has to stop.

How many of you have heard about the Curtis Flowers case? This is an accurate representation of the issues in Mississippi. Let me be clear, The Curtis Flowers case, although one case, is a vivid depiction of the prejudice and corruption that can be seen in Mississippi.

“It’s About Time”…. For the past 30 years, the air I’ve breathed has been tense and the road I’ve traveled has been full of speed bumps and potholes.

Every petition and appeal I’ve filed has been denied by one Appellate Court or another. And while I’ve been waiting, I’ve seen men on Death Row get lethal injection, get resentenced to life with or without parole, and a few get exonerated. There have been some things to celebrate but more to cry about. I’ve scratched my head at the debauchery of a legal system we have not only in MS but across the USA.

But God in His own magnificent way has held me in the palms of His mighty hands and He has kept me safe, strong, and steady as I’ve traveled on all the bumpy roads.

In September of 2024, I received a favourable ruling in Federal Court. It was my first since I came to Death Row in 1995. I was granted access to test DNA and run it along with fingerprints through the national database. All of a sudden, nobody seems to know where it is.

My attorneys filed a petition to the courts in January of 2025 asking the courts to grant us a Discovery Hearing or make the state of MS show cause. On September 30th, the federal judge again ruled in my favor by granting me a limited Discovery Hearing…. United States District Court –Southern District of MS—Northern Division—–Civil Action No. 3:06-Cv-273-DPJ. In all the years I’ve been fighting, these two rulings are the only favourable ones and I thank God. I’m looking forward to more in the near future and I’m hoping to be exonerated as well.

God bless you all and keep me in your thoughts and prayers…. Much love!

Justin Underwood

This series of posts come from Charles Ray Crawford, who goes by Chuck. Chuck was born and raised in Mississippi and is scheduled to be executed by that state on October 15. In this series of five posts, he reflects on his childhood, his faith that has gotten him through more than thirty years on death row, some of the evidence in his case that troubles the prosecutors’ narrative, and his experiences trying to convince his lawyers to pay attention to that evidence.  

To sign a petition to stop Chuck’s execution and give him the chance to have a fair trial, visit the death penalty action website, here.  

Working for A Living 

When the Superintendent came to tell me that my execution date had been set, I asked for three things:  

Don’t lock me down;  

Don’t move me to another cell;  

Don’t take my job. 

The date they’ve set is October 15th. Normally when it gets close like this, they put you in an observation cell. If you’re not already in one, they’ll put you in front of the tower. Watching you. And they basically lock you down.  

I’ll be seeing the Superintendent and the Deputy Superintendent numerous times between now and the 15th. They have to notify me of the means of execution I’m going to go through. Friday they had to bring the death warrant. They’ve got to do it. I understand it’s part of the law. I’m just thankful to God it’s this superintendent. As soon as I walked into the office he stood up, hugged me, told me he loved me, and said we’ll get through all of this together. The man has a good heart. He cares. I don’t think he’s putting on an act. When you go from someone who’s hateful and wants to make you suffer every day of your life to a man like this running this prison — you can’t imagine what a big change that is. This superintendent and the people working closest to him, they treat us like human beings.  

When my sister found out about my date, she asked if I was scared. Anyone who goes through this and says they aren’t scared, they’re lying. But after I close my eyes for the last time, when I open them again, I know where I’m gonna be—in heaven. I’ve known that for a long time. But that doesn’t mean I’m not angry. 

Pro Se Filing: Can You Hear Me Now?

At my trial, my trial attorneys went for an insanity defense. I was adamant that I didn’t want them to do that, and they did it anyway. This meant that my trial lawyer had done no investigation; he focused only on the insanity defense, which works less than 1% of the time. I stood up and objected in trial; I told the judge I no longer accepted my lawyers—as far as I was concerned, they could go sit at the prosecutors’ table because they seemed to be working for them. When the judge said there was nothing he could do, I picked up my chair, took it ten feet away, turned it around, and set my back against the court. You can see my stated disagreement with my trial counsel, as well as the way my attorneys spoke of me, in this excerpt of the trial transcript. If you read page three of that linked excerpt, you would probably swear it was the prosecutor presenting his closing argument, not my attorney. 

That was the beginning of what has felt like 30 years of struggling to get my attorneys to listen to me. I went through federal habeas for 9.5 years without meeting one of my lawyers. I never spoke to her. I couldn’t tell you what she looks like. To be fair, many federal attorneys just go off the record and think they don’t need to talk to clients. This is because you have to give the state courts opportunities to address any claims before they go to the federal courts, so the idea is that by the time you’re in federal court, lawyers should have everything they need in front of them. But sometimes people on death row have more information about their case, issues that their previous attorneys didn’t bring up in state court; if the federal attorneys were aware of these issues, they could request a stay and return your case to state court. But they would never know this if they didn’t talk to you. You only get one shot in federal court, and you want to make sure all your claims are in there, so yes, I think it’s important to meet. How do you represent somebody and never meet them?

My lawyers disagreed. I received letters from one of them explaining very confidently that they would never come visit me. I filed with the courts; I told the judge, “Your honor, if you had my attorney in here and told me I could walk free if I could pick her out, I couldn’t do it.” I’ve redacted the names of these lawyers here, because it’s not just them who have done this to me; many lawyers do this to many of us on death row.  If I had given that federal habeas lawyer 100,000 dollars, she would have been down here seeing me, talking to me on the phone. It’s all about the money. 

Then, in 2014, I begged my lawyer at the time to follow up on some of the facts of my case. He wouldn’t do it. He refused to do it. I begged him and others in his office for years and they wouldn’t listen. It’s frustrating to have lawyers who are supposed to be representing you not listen to you about what to file. It’s not that these lawyers are evil. In the past, there were maybe only two or three lawyers in that office who were responsible for representing 20-25 people. They had to just throw something together and do the best they could with the resources they had. 

That’s why I would file pro se. I just had to try to get somebody to listen to me. You can’t just sit here and let that happen: you have to do something. I would mostly do this when I felt my lawyers were leaving something out. Then I would have to go in and file something. It wouldn’t be effective, but I wanted to get it before the court, to preserve it, in case I got a lawyer later on who would pursue it. I have filed pro se motions and briefs in all of my appeals, including my direct appeal, my post-conviction appeals, and my habeas appeals. In all of my pro se motions, I stated that I wasn’t a lawyer, but I was doing my best. I can’t tell you how many times I would write something, tear it up, and write it again before sending it into file. 

Filing pro se is extremely limiting, because you’re doing it from inside a prison cell. You basically have to rely on what’s already been produced in your case and challenge it that way. You can’t go out and question witnesses or look for evidence, and we don’t have computer access to look up cases. We have to rely on the law library to bring us stuff. And you’re writing it by hand. When I first  started doing this years ago, we could get type writers off commissary. Because I could type, I filed a bunch of pro se stuff then. Starting around the 2000s we couldn’t have typewriters anymore; they just stopped selling them, along with the supplies you need for them.  At that point, once you ran out of ribbons, you couldn’t buy more. Guys had typewriters for years after that, but they were no good because they couldn’t get more ribbons.  

Whether you have a typewriter or write everything out by hand, when you file pro se, the court basically ignores you because you’re not a lawyer.  But I won’t say it’s a waste of time, because there are a lot of pro so filings that have done a lot of good. A lot of people don’t know this, but your Miranda Rights? That was written on paper sacks from a guy in prison. It was a pro se defendant that got you your Miranda Rights.

Because my earlier lawyers wouldn’t include a lot of important issues in my filings, the judges can say, “This should have been brought up years ago, now it’s procedurally barred.” Worst of all, the way it’s written, they say “Crawford failed to do this…Crawford failed to do that…” that wasn’t me! That was my lawyers. Just like at my trial, when my lawyers claimed insanity when I opposed it. A judge wrote, “Had Crawford not chosen to go for the insanity defense, his case and conviction would have been overturned;” — but “Crawford” vehemently rejected the insanity defense.

When you get good people, though, they become like family. One of my current lawyers has been representing me for more than a decade, even after she moved away from Mississippi for another position out of state. She’s a real good lady. And my current lawyer has made sure a lot of the leg work that was supposed to happen years ago got done. 

The Mississippi Supreme Court violated the law when they set my date. The state statute says the Supreme Court cannot set a date until all a defendant’s state and federal appeals have been exhausted, and I have one appeal left. In their response to my most recent filing, prosecutors didn’t say anything about the filing not having merit; they said it was procedurally barred. A man facing death should never have to think about time or procedure bars. Time and procedural bars are what people are going to have to start screaming about. 

I stopped filing pro se back in 2014 when they were trying to set my execution date. It was too stressful and frustrating. I got sick and tired of filing this stuff and it not doing any good. That was when I started to turn everything over to God and rely on Him. I believe that He brought good people into my life, including my current counsel, to help me. 

What Crime Scene?

It’s not about innocence or guilt. It’s not just about my case; it’s about everyone’s case. Guilty or innocent, people deserve fair trials and a fair appeals process. If the system gets used to hiding evidence, if they get away with being dirty and corrupt, that is how innocent people get executed. There has to be a fair process in every case. If the prosecutors and investigators are fabricating evidence and putting it together to suit their story—if they’re building their case on lies and manipulation of the facts—how can you tell who is guilty and who is innocent?

If anyone looks my case up online, it looks straightforward and simple. That’s because for 30 years, my attorneys have never put the other side of the story out there. The only story presented has been the story of the prosecution. There were 53 pieces of physical evidence in my case, and until very recently, my lawyers refused to follow up on most of them. If my trial attorneys or appellate counsel had listened to me, they would have found out decades ago what we only found out a few years ago. Instead, my trial lawyers claimed insanity, effectively pleading guilt, despite my vehement opposition to this claim. Pleading insanity also meant my lawyers didn’t do any investigation into my case at all. I’ll tell you more about that later.

My current lawyer was the first person who listened to me and was willing and able to put in the work to investigate all these pieces of evidence. In 2023, my current counsel spoke with an expert to review the procedures, notes, documentation, and evidence from this case: this expert, Sergeant Charles Smith, served for 30 years on Crime Scene Investigations and Patrol Operations in Mississippi, and he is a certified expert witness. In his affidavit, Sergeant Smith provides detailed explanations for how officers repeatedly disregarded basic procedures, and he highlights multiple inconsistencies in the casework that challenge the prosecutors’ version of what happened. You can read his entire affidavit here. There are several parts of his affidavit that I want to point out. The list is long, buckle up.

The fingerprints and handprints found on the victim’s vehicle were tested, and none of them were mine. Two fingerprints were found to be the victim’s, and the rest have never been identified, and no evidence in that vehicle has ever been traced to me. Who drove that car there, got out of it, and left their prints on the car?

State highway patrol reports state that a tracking dog followed a scent from that same vehicle due east for approximately 2.5 miles, which is not the direction they say I went. They never followed up on who may have gone east.

The knife they say I used does not match the wound that killed the victim. Rather, the wound appears to have been made by something more like the knife found in a tent nearby the crime scene: neither this tent nor the second knife was ever investigated. I was never connected to that tent or that knife, and this second knife disappeared. To my knowledge, none of my trial counsel or appellate counsel—and certainly not me—knew about this tent or the second knife. I only learned of this when my current counsel got an affidavit from Sheriff Paul Gowdy in 2022.

Two sets of handcuffs were found at the scene of the crime, which are described as being in various locations throughout the case file documents. These two sets can be traced back to a police supply store near Memphis, Tennessee, purchased from the same lot in 1972. This is a company that supplied handcuffs, holsters, etc, to the police in that area. By the way, I was six years old at the time those handcuffs were sold. Who besides a cop would keep two pairs of handcuffs together for over 20 years? There was a deputy sheriff who worked on the crime scene of my case who had previously retired from the county where the handcuffs were sold. Multiple, probably hundreds of officers bought supplies from that company; but for them to turn up at my crime scene 21 years later when there’s a police officer who’s in my investigation and retired from that county…could that be a coincidence? People have to be their own judge on that. If we had brought this up at trial, we could have asked “are those your cuffs?” But we can’t, because now that officer is dead.

Though the expert’s affidavit speaks for itself, I will also add that when my attorney spoke to this expert, she asked him to describe the crime scene; he said, “What crime scene?” It was so contaminated that there was no crime scene left. Shouldn’t that give pause to the way that some of this evidence has been used against me, uncontested for decades?

There are several other pieces to this case that I’d like people to know about, but, because of time constraints, we may not be able to link to the documents. In 2014, my attorneys at the time brought me an envelope of documents connected to my case. They hadn’t done any work with these documents, but I had asked to see everything they had. I laid them out on the table and connected the dots. It was like putting together a jigsaw puzzle: I had dozens of pieces and I didn’t know how they connected until I could put them side by side. Some of these documents, I still have with me here in my cell, and I don’t think we’ll be able to show them to you. But I hope that you might still consider how these next pieces complicate the version of events told by the prosecution.

The handwritten ransom note found at the victim’s home was not tested with my handwriting, though they had the chance to do this test. When I was in jail after the arrest for this crime, FBI agents went to my house and asked my wife for some handwriting samples from me. My wife gave them, I believe, six handwritten letters that I wrote her while I was in the military. They kept those letters for two or three months and then gave them back to my wife. Meanwhile, prosecutors used the handwritten ransom note found at the crime scene at trial to convict me. There was no testimony given at trial that my handwriting matched that note. You can be sure that if those handwriting samples had matched the ransom note, they would have had experts testify to that at my trial. I can only speculate that they didn’t use those letters at trial because they could not find an expert to state that the handwriting was a match.

There are remaining mysteries about the dog team. There are three documents that show how the dog tracking team got to within 15 feet of the body before the search was called off. According to the FBI investigators’ and prosecutors’ version of the story at trial, they didn’t find the body on that initial search, even though they were 15 feet away. Unless that dog dropped dead right after finding evidence, how could it have not also found a body so nearby? My current lawyer finally got to talk to the dog handler. He said they got up to that point in the woods when the dogs found pieces of evidence, and the dog was “alerting” that something else was near, The FBI agent who was with the dog handler walked toward where the body would later be “found,” which was near a brush pile; the handler stated that the agent turned and said, “Look it’s getting late, we’re calling the search off, y’all can leave now.” This statement from the handler is not documented, but it was stated to a credible person, my lawyer.

Who let the dogs out? At trial, the lead FBI investigator was asked who handled the dogs during this investigation, and he stated that he had no idea: if he had to guess, he would say it was either members of the Mississippi State highway patrol or a team from Parchman. But he knew exactly where those dogs came from, which we can see from two documents. First, in a press release on the day of my arrest, he describes the tracking team as coming from Parchman. Second, he had written a letter to the superintendent at Parchman thanking him for sending the dog team; he writes in this note that they used the tracking team to find evidence in the case. So he lied at trial. Why would he lie about this? In my mind, this casts further suspicion over this strange failed search attempt with the dogs.

There is an FBI 302 form suggesting that this case may have involved entrapment. Whatever people who work for the FBI do in a case, they need to document that work in a 302 form describing who, what, when, and where (among other information). Somewhere around 2014, my lawyer at the time discovered an FBI 302 form about my case. The form is dated March 1, 1993. Part of this form is redacted, but the part that remains states the officer concludes “…and did not feel that there was any problem with entrapment.” In the legal sense, entrapment is when the police or someone working for them entices someone to commit a crime and then arrests them for that crime. This is illegal. Why did entrapment come up in this case at all? To me, this looks like somebody they knew had been involved, and I wonder if they had to cover some things up. If you believe their version of what happened, the word “entrapment” never would have come up at all.

Until very recently, almost none of this was ever brought out in my filings. This has been my whole point all along. If the jurors were presented with what I have presented now, could anyone say for sure that a jury would have convicted me?

If I am executed, it won’t be because of the crime they convicted me of—it will be because throughout most of my case, my attorneys have refused to do what I have asked them to do.

Hope and Humor with Five Days Left

Yesterday, I got called down to the office for a visit over the web. A psychiatrist online was asking about depression and anxiety, if I’m sleeping, if I’m eating. I still have an appetite. I still eat what they call a charbroiled patty—they make a real good attempt to make it taste charbroiled. I still drink what I like to call the fruit-like substance, which is sometimes an orange-like substance, and sometimes a cherry-like substance. When the turkey and beans come on the tray, I still say to someone, like I have for years, “Whatever that is mighta rode past some turkeys on the way here, but it’s sure not turkey.”

It’s standard procedure for people from various departments to come by and visit during this. Other guys who live here, chaplains, lawyers. All the MDOC brass came to talk to me. From the Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner, the Superintendent, and a lawyer from MDOC. I think they were just feeling me out, telling me about what will happen in the next few days. That was a really good meeting as far as discussing your execution might go. Mr. Cain said, “Well Charles, is there anything I can get you or do for you?” And I said, “Well you wouldn’t happen to have a pardon in your pocket, would ya?” Everyone laughed. It was a good meeting. I respect all those men.  

I also got copies of the clemency letters my lawyers filed. There was one from an ex-officer who worked here for 21 years and was around me a lot of that time. She voiced her opinion on my character, my faith and trust. It was uplifting to read those letters—that people see me for who I am and are willing to speak out about it. 

But when you get to this point of it, it’s really tough on the families. A week or so after getting my date, I had a family visit with my dad and step-mom. They got here at 8 and I didn’t get to talk to them until 11. Once they got through the gate, the power went off. I worked part of the morning but stopped my work early, at 9, knowing they’d be coming. After waiting and waiting, I asked the officer about the visit, and she said “Yeah, they’re here, we just can’t get them in.” We still got to visit for a couple hours. We had to make decisions like “who’s going to be picking up my body?” and “what funeral home?”— I had to go through that two or three times, and doing that with your family is…it’s trying. All this caught us off guard so much, getting the date only 32 days out. I hope nobody else has to go through it. My family are understandably pretty tore up. But I’m trying to give them peace of mind. 

It’s different each time this happens. I’ve been through this I believe 20 times. Some people don’t want to talk about it and others do. Tom and I didn’ t talk a lot about his execution.* With Richard, he and I talked. I held onto some of his property. He left me extra clothes and sheets. Guys leave whatever somebody can use. They’ll give it away and say, “If I don’t come back, it’s yours” because we hold hope that they will come back. If somebody asks me how I’m doing, I’ll tell them and talk about it. Jamie and I talk about it more than anybody else, because me and Jamie are really close. I will probably leave him a few things, probably some canteen and stuff like that. 

It’s a trying situation, even for people you don’t get along with. Because they’re in line, too. If the state could line us all up and get us back to back to back, they would. Sooner or later, in the back of your mind, your number’s gonna come up. And the more people you see go before you, in some people’s minds, the less time you have. So this whole thing is stressful. 

They told the guys that maybe on Friday they’ll come over and play games. They’ll come over with BINGO and little bags of canteen, and I see why they do it. It’s to lighten the mood. When it was Tom and Richard, I could not participate. It just felt like making light. Because it’s—I don’t know, it’s just not proper. I don’t hold it against the guys that do participate. But I think it’s a time for being solemn. I don’t know if you should take your mind off of it or not. This Friday, I probably won’t participate in any of the games and stuff. To be honest with you, I’ll probably be on the phone!

The court still hasn’t set a scheduling order to respond to the writ of cert. That could be good news because if it gets down so far, they might have to put a stay in—but you never know with this court. It’s coming down to the wire. I think they could do this thing a better way than to just come down to the last minute with everything. One guy here came within 20 minutes of being executed—they already had the IV in his arm and that kind of stuff. He got off of death row and later passed away from cancer.

But I allow God to take this stress away and give me peace. Whatever’s going on, He’s working behind the scenes. I’m trying to keep it normal, trying to keep my family and friends calm and at peace by showing them that I’m at peace. And I am: I’m not putting up a front to show I’m strong. It’s not that things don’t run through my mind, but I have peace, because I know that it’s gonna be God’s will. 

Even at this time now. God is giving me joy in my heart, and laughter, and friendship, and fellowship. I could be in my rack rolled up in tears; but even at this time He’s given me joy and laughter. 

*Thomas Loden Jr. was executed in Mississippi by lethal injection on December 14, 2022.

Devin Bennett ‘Injustice, not Justice’ – continued……

In 1996 the Anti EffectiveTerrorism Death Penalty Act was born. The objective of this Act was to limit Federal oversight into State proceedings. As a result the United States Supreme Court ruled that for states to opt into the Act , thus benefiting from it, there were certain requirements they must meet.

These requirements were an acknowledgement that with the absence of Federal oversight of state courts there would be a greater level of responsibility on the state courts, as well as the attorneys who represent death penalty offenders in those courts.

The states had to provide indigent death penalty offenders with effective counsel. Hence the Capital Post- Conviction office was enacted. In addition to this the Legislature also heightened the qualifications for Post-Conviction Counsel.

In doing this the Legislature established four things:

1)They agreed with the need for effective counsel.

2)They outlined the standard for what effective counsel is.

3)They proved they understood the intent of the Legislation was for Ineffective Assistance of Counsel claims.

4) They provided a reasonable expectation for all offenders being represented that counsel would do there job and if not there would be accountability.

This runs contrary to the 2024 opinion in Ronk. V. State , where the Mississippi Supreme court not only ignored these points, but, basically erased 25 yeas of law.

There are several problems with the opinion and order in the Ronk case. All of which prove thee Mississippi Supreme court is acting arbitrarily and indifferent to well established law and rights.

First , in the Ronk opinion the Court States that ” the Grayson court exceeded its bounds by judicially crafting an exception to the UPCCRA’S substantive , constitutional bars.”

The problem with this is this is not an intervening decision. Even tho they attempt to treat it as one for their own agenda stating ” After Grayson , the State says it is now the “modus operandi of Mississippi.”

What I find convenient is that every case the Mississippi Supreme Court sites in Ronk v State attempting to defend their position is prior to the Anti Terrorism Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.

Let’s take this a step further. In the Jackson v. State opinion Justice Mills concurred with the majority stating ,” such a post trial right ….is constitutionally nonexistent “.

The majority in Ronk v.State allege the an indigent death row prisoners right to post conviction counsel is based on MS. Code Section 99-15-15 (which states that, the accused shall have representation available at every critical stage of the proceedings against him where substantial eights may be affected.)

While this is accurate it is nor complete. Remember, when the United States Supreme Court ruled that states who desire to benefit from the Anti Terrorism Effective Death Penalty Act must do certain things. What is important is why in light of this Act did the High Court rule that if states are going to use this Act they must provide component counsel? Its because the High Court understood that by removing the Federal oversight there would be less accountability for the state courts, and therefore less room for ineffective counsel.

Through the ruling in Ronk the Mississippi Supreme court has completely removed death penalty prisoners ability to hold counsel to the very standards and expectation the Legislature has set upon them.

Jackson, Puckett, and Grayson are all rulings that rest on the decision made by the state of Mississippi, and the Legislature, to enact the Capital Post-Conviction office, heighten the qualifications for death penalty counsel, and ultimately benefit from the Anti Terrorism Effective Death Penalty Act. You can’t have it both ways Mississippi. If your going to remove oversight, despite having established a heightened standard of practice and expectation of death penalty counsel in state court, then you must allow death penalty prisoners the opportunity to hold those attorney’s accountable. If these attorneys cannot be held accountable, why establish an expectation of performance?

The right to effective assistance of counsel is not a Grayson right. The intervening opinion that gave indigent death penalty prisoners the right to hold these attorneys accountable by filing an ineffective assistance of counsel claim on Post-Conviction counsel was set in Jackson v. State in 1999. The Mississippi Supreme court stated “…today we make clear that Post-Conviction petitioners who are under a sentence of death do have right to the effective assistance of Post-Conviction counsel” (Jackson V. State, 732 so. 2d 187 (Miss. 1999) see also Puckett v. State MISS. 2002) Grayson is not a new judicially crafted exception. In fact, the substantive part of Grayson ie. Post conviction petitioners who are under a sentence of death do have a right to effective assistance of counsel is founded on Jackson and Puckett. We know this because it was, in part , due to these cases that the Court not only stated the need for effective assistance of counsel in Post-Conviction but, they established it by enacting the Capital Post conviction office. By providing the remedy they acknowledged the need, and in that the Court established the right.

To deny indigent death penalty prisoners a right to effective assistance of counsel is to say that the enacting of the Capital Post conviction office was all for show,  that the standards and expectation of post conviction counsel set is meaningless, and that the state of Mississippi only enacted that office to satisfy the demand of the High Court so they could benefit from the Anti Terrorism Effective Death Penalty act, ultimately removing Federal oversight and allowing the Mississippi Supreme Court to do whatever they want. Which is exactly what they are doing.

Following the denial of multiple hearings, finally the Judge rules in Justin Underwood’s favour.

There will be a hearing on the 8th december when J’s lawyers will request the DNA evidence that the Judge agrees Justin should see.

He will attend court in person due to his impeccable behaviour and good character.

January 2026:

SCOTUS denies petition to review case of Mississippi death row inmate

The Supreme Court of the United States denied on Monday, Jan. 26, a request to review the case of a Mississippi death row inmate who killed a woman during an attempted rape.

Stephen Elliot Powers, now 56, was sentenced to death in December 2000 for the June 1998 death and attempted rape of 27-year-old Elizabeth “Beth” Lafferty at her home in Hattiesburg. Lafferty was shot 5 times — 3 shots at close range to the back of her head, o1 under her chin and 1 in her temple.

In a petition filed in October 2025, counsel for Powers argued the government “actively concealed” exculpatory evidence in his case until 2023.

According to the petition, when Powers suspected that, the state “instructed a locality and the Mississippi Forensics Laboratory not to provide Powers with any evidence.” That prompted Powers to file a motion to compel, which was granted in part.

Powers argues the exculpatory evidence points to “an alternate, original suspect with a close nexus to the victim,” adding that previously undisclosed documents show the “victim’s ex-boyfriend was the original and only suspect in the murder.”

“Additionally, a witness reported last seeing the victim ‘with a thin white male.’ Powers is a Black male, but the victim’s ex-boyfriend matches the description of a thin white male,'” the petition states

Once Powers received the exculpatory material, he filed a motion for relief with the Mississippi Supreme Court. His counsel stated the state’s supreme court dismissed the petition “without addressing whether the materials had been suppressed or without a determination as to whether Powers was at fault for not presenting the claim earlier.”

In a response filed Dec. 22, 2025, by Attorney General Lynn Fitch’s Office, the state contended that Lafferty’s ex-boyfriend was not further investigated as a suspect after Powers was identified as the last person seen with Lafferty alive, confessed to the murder and led officers to the murder weapon.

Powers has not denied killing Lafferty but claims the 2 “struggled with the gun, and the gun went off,” while Lafferty was “‘playing’ around with him.”

The state further contended that the ex-boyfriend had an alibi at the time of Lafferty’s murder.

According to the state, the document mentioning the 2nd suspect was a part of a patrol officer’s incident report, which at trial “would not have put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict.”

“This case does not warrant further review,” the state’s response said.

Beth Lafferty’s parents, Mike and Diane Lafferty, previously told the Clarion Ledger in 2019 they would never get over their daughter’s brutal death and would continue to fight for justice and the death penalty.

(source: Mississippi Clarion Ledger)

February 2026:

‘Detail and Procedure Matter – Or Do They?’

When a crime is committed the police, the State, the prosecutors, the lawyers all have their assigned duties and procedures to follow. Adherence to policy is vital – it can mean the difference between a conviction and an aquittal. So what happens when policy is not followed and a conviction still takes place?

It is hard to find solid data showing how much violent crime is attributable to people suffering mental health illness. Many people in the criminal justice system have a mental health diagnosis or exist with the symptoms but this does not mean their mental illness caused their violent crime – substance abuse and social disadvantage are frequently apparent too.

Let’s use the tragic, recent ‘Reiner’ family case as an example. Nick Reiner stands charged with the first degree murders of his parents, Rob and Michelle Reiner on 14th december 2025. He did not enter a plea to these charges during a brief court appearance. His attorney, Alan Jackson, said afterwards that he belived his former client was innocent.

That is an opinion that will only be confirmed following a routine, procedural mental health evaluation. This implies that Alan Jackson believes that Nick Reiner has a mental health problem that will likely mean that he is not culpable for the deaths of his parents. Given the circumstances of his parents deaths this is hard to accept.

But the law is the law, or is it? Surely the law is only the law when strict procedure and protocol are followed?

And note that Alan Jackson is now his ‘former’ lawyer. There has been a lot of speculation as to why Alan Jackson is no longer representing Nick Reiner. The most likely reason is ‘Mr Green did not show up’ – lawyer slang for a client not having budget.

There is a case in Mississippi that has a procedural issue within a Death Row conviction. The case is hard to comprehend, involves violence and multiple deaths. It garnered much attention in 2017. A man went on a killing spree and ended the lives of one law enforcement officer and seven members of his family. No psychological evaluation was carried out on this man prior to sentencing. A procedural error. Yet Willie Corey Godbolt was sentenced to death.

Some feel this death sentence should be vacated due to procedural error. Many of course believe the incarceration should remain, with or without the death sentence. The US Supreme Court ruled on Godbolt’s case on April 29th 2025. They declined to review a Mississippi Death Row prisoner’s conviction for the slaying of 8 people, including his mother-in-law and a Deputy Sheriff in 2017. Willie C Godbolt had filed a handwritten petition seeking the High Court’s review of a decision made by the Mississippi Supreme Court affirming his convictions and death sentences. In his petition to the US Supreme Court he claimed and ineffective defense and illegal search, among other violations. The justices don’t typically explain their decision to deny review and did not say why they rejected Godbolt’s case.

The moral of the story? Procedure may or may not be followed. When facing a death sentence in Mississippi your lawyer really is the difference between life and death.

Feb 2026
Willie Corey Godbolt

Devin Bennett – SBS Filings:

At the very least Devin Bennett deserves an evidentiary hearing. Devin did not harm his son Brandon and is supported in that by Brandon’s mother and her family. The State of MS has sentenced people to death who have later been exonerated of any wrong doing – they make mistakes. Devin has suffered enough.

FILED – Bennett – Response.Reply – 2.19.26