IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DEREK WAYNE JACKSON,

Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-5932 BRIAN COLEMAN, et al., Respondents. ORDER AND NOW, this 23rd day of December 2025, upon careful and independent consideration of the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. No. 30]; the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge [Doc. No. 64]; Petitioner’s Objections thereto [Doc. No. 69]; the Court’s September 3, 2021 Memorandum Opinion and Order [Doc. Nos. 90, 91]; the evidentiary hearing that followed [Doc. No. 116]; the parties’ additional stipulations [Doc. No. 98]; and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED as to Claims 1, 3, and 4. 2. The Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED as to Claims 2 and 5 for the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion. 3. The Amended Petition is DENIED as to any and all other claims. 4. Petitioner’s conviction and sentence are VACATED. 5. The Writ shall issue, and Petitioner shall be RELEASED from custody (subject to any detainers) unless the Commonwealth provides him a new trial within six months of the date of this Order. 6. It is further ORDERED that counsel for Petitioner and Respondents shall immediately inform the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas of this Order, and shall file status updates detailing progress toward compliance with this Order every sixty days. 7. As to Claims 1, 3, and 4, there is no probable cause to issue a certificate of appealability.1

8. This Order is STAYED pending any appeal. 9. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case for statistical purposes. It is so ORDERED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Cynthia M. Rufe

CYNTHIA M. RUFE, J.

1 There is no basis for concluding that “reasonable jurists could debate whether . . . the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000) (internal citation omitted). 2