Georgia man set for execution has sentence commuted to life without parole

ATLANTA — A Georgia man will not face execution tonight after a parole board commuted his sentence.

Jimmy Meders will now spend the rest of his life in prison after he was found guilty of a 1987 murder of a store clerk.

“The Board cited Meders’ lack of a criminal record prior to committing his offense, his commission of only one minor infraction in over 30 years on death row, the jury’s explicit desire during deliberations to impose a life without parole sentence which was legally unavailable at the time, and every living, able juror’s continued support for such a sentence.”

Meders’ lawyers wanted the state parole board to convert his sentence to life without the possibility of parole, arguing that’s what the jury would have chosen if given the chance.

In a clemency application filed with the State Board of Pardons and Paroles, Meders’ lawyers urged board members to spare his life. The board is the only authority in Georgia that can commute a death sentence. It plans to hold a closed-door clemency hearing Wednesday.

Meders was sentenced in 1989, four years before a sentence of life without the possibility of parole was allowed in capital cases. It’s clear that his jurors would have preferred to have had that option, lawyer Michael Admirand wrote in the clemency petition. He cited a note that jurors wrote to the judge after deliberating for about 20 minutes.

“If the Jury recommends that the accused be sentence to life imprisonment, can the Jury recommend that the sentence be carried out without Parole??” the jurors asked.

Additionally, the six jurors who are still alive and able to remember the deliberations said in sworn statements collected by Meders' attorneys that they would have chosen life without parole. They didn't believe he was among the “worst of the worst” criminals who deserve the death penalty, but they also didn't want him released, Admirand wrote.

“By commuting Meders’ sentence to life without parole, this Board would not be overturning the jury’s determination as to the appropriate sentence. It would be effectuating it,” Admirand wrote.

© 2020 Cox Media Group