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.