DEATH ROW Execution HALTED By Scandal

Weathered Death Row sign on aged concrete wall

A double murderer on death row got his execution halted just days before the scheduled date because two members of Georgia’s parole board had previously worked on his case in different capacities.

Story Overview

Stacey Humphreys, 52, was set to be executed December 17 for killing two real estate agents in 2003
Judge halted execution after discovering parole board conflicts of interest during clemency process
One board member was a victim advocate on the original case, another was sheriff during the trial
Legal briefs due January 19, 2026 to determine if conflicts tainted the clemency hearing

The Crime That Started It All

Stacey Humphreys walked into a real estate office in Cobb County in 2003 and gunned down two young agents: 33-year-old Cyndi Williams and 21-year-old Lori Brown. The brutal murders shocked the Atlanta suburb and led to a death sentence after trial proceedings moved to coastal Glynn County to avoid pretrial publicity. For over two decades, the case worked its way through appeals while the families of the victims waited for justice.

The execution was initially scheduled for December 17, 2025, but got paused when Humphreys’ lawyers discovered something troubling about the people deciding his fate. The very board members reviewing his clemency petition had direct connections to his original prosecution and trial.

Conflicts Hidden in Plain Sight

The Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles holds the power of life and death in clemency decisions, but two of its current members brought serious baggage to Humphreys’ case. Kimberly McCoy had worked as a victim advocate in the Cobb County District Attorney’s office and was specifically assigned to support the families of Williams and Brown during the original prosecution. Her role put her squarely on the side seeking Humphreys’ conviction and execution.

Wayne Bennett presented an equally problematic conflict as the former Glynn County Sheriff who oversaw security during Humphreys’ trial. Bennett was responsible for protecting jurors and managing the defendant’s transportation and courthouse security. His department’s professional reputation depended partly on the trial’s successful completion and the conviction’s validity. These connections created an obvious appearance of bias that should have triggered immediate recusal from any clemency review.

Judge Steps In to Preserve Justice

Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney recognized the severity of these conflicts and took decisive action. Rather than allowing a tainted process to proceed, he ordered the execution machinery to pause while the legal system addresses these “non-frivolous” concerns about impartiality. His willingness to halt an execution demonstrates judicial integrity in ensuring due process, even for convicted murderers.

The judge’s order requires all parties to submit legal briefs by January 19, 2026, examining whether these conflicts compromised Humphreys’ right to an impartial clemency hearing. This thorough approach protects the integrity of Georgia’s death penalty system while ensuring that justice isn’t perverted by procedural shortcuts or oversight failures.

Broader Questions About Georgia’s System

This case exposes potential weaknesses in how Georgia screens parole board members for conflicts in capital cases. The fact that two members with direct case involvement sat on Humphreys’ clemency review suggests inadequate conflict-checking procedures. While nobody deserves sympathy for murdering innocent young women trying to earn a living, the integrity of the justice system demands impartial review processes, especially when the state seeks to take a life.

The delay prolongs the agony for the victims’ families who have waited over two decades for final justice. However, ensuring procedural fairness strengthens public confidence in capital punishment and prevents future legal challenges that could overturn convictions on due process grounds. A clean, conflict-free clemency process serves everyone’s interests in maintaining a justice system worthy of public trust.