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.