Georgia Court Halts Stacey Humphreys’ Execution to Weigh Clemency Board Member Conflict of Interest

On December 29, 2025, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney issued an order block­ing the Georgia Board of Pardons and Parole (GBPP) from resched­ul­ing a clemen­cy hear­ing and set­ting a new exe­cu­tion date for Stacey Humphreys. Two weeks ear­li­er, on December 15^th the GBPP put Mr. Humphreys’ December 16^th clemen­cy hear­ing on hold ​“indef­i­nite­ly,” leav­ing in lim­bo the sta­tus of his exe­cu­tion, sched­uled for the fol­low­ing day. Judge McBurney issued the stay, last­ing up to three months, to allow time to ​“thought­ful­ly resolve” a motion by Mr. Humphreys’ attor­neys request­ing parole board mem­ber Kimberley McCoy recuse her­self from con­sid­er­ing his clemen­cy peti­tion, due to a con­flict of interest. 

During a hear­ing on Mr. Humphreys’ motion before Judge McBurney on December 14, 2025, evi­dence was pre­sent­ed regard­ing poten­tial con­flicts of inter­est for two of the five mem­bers of the GBPP. In the case of Wayne Bennett, the sher­iff in charge of cour­t­house secu­ri­ty in the coun­ty where the mur­der tri­al was con­duct­ed, Judge McBurney ruled that no con­flict of inter­est exist­ed. In his order, Judge McBurney not­ed that the sher­iff ​“recalled very lit­tle” of the tri­al, was not direct­ly involved with the day-to-day pro­ceed­ings, and had no sub­stan­tive inter­ac­tions with Humphreys, the jurors, wit­ness­es or the vic­tims’ families. 

However, Judge McBurney said the ques­tion of whether the sec­ond board mem­ber named in Mr. Humphreys’ motion, Karen McCoy, could par­tic­i­pate in Mr. Humphreys’ clemen­cy hear­ing but abstain from vot­ing, need­ed fur­ther con­sid­er­a­tion. State attor­neys argued for this approach despite Ms. McCoy’s direct involve­ment as a vic­tim advo­cate assigned to one of the vic­tims in Mr. Humphreys’ case. Mr. Humphreys’ attor­neys, on the oth­er hand, say a sim­ple recusal from vot­ing would not ensure his clemen­cy peti­tion received a fair hear­ing, and that Ms. McCoy should be replaced so that his case is heard by a full five-mem­ber board with­out con­flicts of interest. 

Clemency deci­sions require a major­i­ty of the board to vote in favor. At the December hear­ing, GBPP Attorney La’Quandra Smith agreed with Mr. Humphreys’ attor­neys that an absten­tion was effec­tive­ly the same as a vote to deny clemen­cy. Attorney Smith also tes­ti­fied that she’d nev­er seen a clemen­cy hear­ing of this nature pro­ceed with few­er than five board mem­bers. In his order, Judge McBurney not­ed that the Governor may appoint a tem­po­rary replace­ment to the parole board when there is a ques­tion of ​“med­ical inca­pac­i­ta­tion” but said it was not clear if that pow­er extend­ed to the cir­cum­stances in this case. 

The GBPP has the pow­er to grant clemen­cy and stays of exe­cu­tion, act­ing alone with­out the gov­er­nor. It also oper­ates in secret: accord­ing to report­ing, its votes are clas­si­fied as ​“con­fi­den­tial state secrets.” 

Mr. Humphreys’ attor­neys are sep­a­rate­ly argu­ing that his tri­al was taint­ed by what three Supreme Court jus­tices have described as ​“extreme juror misconduct.”