The longest-running death row case in Harris County is heading back to court. On Thursday, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals threw out the death sentence of Clarence Curtis Jordan, a 70-year-old man convicted in 1978 of killing Houston grocer Joe L. Williams, and sent the case back for a new punishment proceeding.
Jordan has spent decades under a death sentence while repeatedly found incompetent to be executed. The high court left his murder conviction in place but ruled that the jury instructions at his sentencing phase kept jurors from fully weighing the mitigating evidence his lawyers offered. Now a Harris County jury will once again be asked to decide whether Jordan should live or die.
High Court Says Jury Instructions Were Not Enough
In a per curiam opinion, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted habeas relief on what is known as a Penry claim. The court found that the special jury questions used at Jordan’s 1983 punishment trial did not give jurors a usable way to consider so-called two-edged evidence of cognitive and psychiatric dysfunction.
Because that flaw was deemed harmful, the court vacated Jordan’s death sentence and sent the case back to the trial court for a new punishment proceeding. In legal terms, the verdict stands, but the sentence has to be redone.
How Jordan’s Case Came Back to Life
For years, Jordan was declared incompetent to be executed and had no lawyer actively pressing his post-conviction claims. His file largely gathered dust while his execution remained legally on hold. The case resurfaced after legal advocates raised alarms about long-delayed appeals in Harris County capital cases.
In 2024, a judge appointed Ben Wolff, director of the Office of Capital and Forensic Writs, to represent Jordan. Wolff’s office filed the habeas petition that ultimately triggered the high court’s review, according to Houston Landing.
Defense Reaction
Wolff called the outcome “a really sad case” and told The Texas Tribune that the only other punishment available under Jordan’s conviction would be life in prison with the possibility of parole. He added that his office, which focuses on post-conviction work, would likely have to hand the case off if Harris County’s proceedings turn into more than a straightforward resentencing.
Harris County’s Response
The Harris County District Attorney’s Office emphasized that Jordan’s conviction still stands but described the ruling as “what justice looks like” and stressed that the law has to be followed carefully when a life is on the line, according to Click2Houston. Prosecutors did not immediately say whether they will seek the death penalty again at a new punishment trial.
Legal Takeaways
The opinion, issued April 9, 2026, leans on principles from Penry v. Lynaugh. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that the special issues given to Jordan’s jury in the early 1980s did not let jurors give meaningful effect to the sort of mitigating evidence later recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The judges found that gap harmful to the outcome of sentencing. At the same time, the court dismissed Jordan’s Atkins claim, related to intellectual disability, as waived for purposes of this proceeding and sent back only the punishment question to Harris County.
What Happens Next
The next move is a new punishment hearing in a Harris County courtroom. Prosecutors will decide how to proceed under state law, though they have not publicly laid out their plan, The Texas Tribune reports.
The ruling throws a spotlight on long-running concerns about delayed appeals in capital cases and the way the criminal legal system treats defendants with serious cognitive impairments. Those questions, both legal and human, now land squarely back in the laps of Harris County judges, lawyers, and jurors.
