Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

United States of America v. Julius Deshawn Williams

Date: 11-12-2025

Case Number: 25-CR-10

Judge: CAR

Court: United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia (Macon County)

Plaintiff's Attorney: United States Attorney's Office in Macon

Defendant's Attorney:

Click Here For The Best Macon Criminal Defense Law Lawyer Directory



Description: Macon, Georgia, criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with drug possession.

On June 24, 2024, Officer Clayton Willis and other law enforcement officers interviewed Defendant Julius Deshawn Williams after locating packages containing methamphetamine Defendant attempted to bring inside Dooly County State Prison.[1]During the audio-recorded interview, Defendant substantially stated (1) he did not know the substances contained in the packages he possessed were methamphetamine, and (2) he mistakenly believed those substances were pills.[2] After Defendant's arrest, the Grand Jury returned a one-count indictment charging Defendant with possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A)(viii).

“Generally, courts should not prohibit a defendant from presenting a theory of defense to the jury.”[5] But “some relevant factual basis for the defense should exist under Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 402[]” for the defense to be presented to a jury.[6] In the same way, a specific argument made in support of a defense must have some relevant factual basis for the argument to be presented to a jury. Thus, if a defendant's argument lacks a relevant factual basis under Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 402, a court should exclude that argument. If evidence has “any tendency” to make a fact of consequence more or less likely, then it is relevant and thus admissible under Rules 401 and 402.[7]

Outcome: This case is scheduled for trial on December 2, 2025.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: