PrairieWind, it really is a mess!
From what I gather, Blackwood took heed of the TN Supreme Courts ruling against the basis he used to order new trials for Davidson and Cobbins, but decided to ignore what the court's inclusion of Thomas. Blackwood is reviewing the trial transcripts for Davidson and Cobbins but not for Thomas, of whom Blackwood has decreed his first order still stands. (I know: go figure.)
In the meantime, Thomas and his attys are pressing for a speedy trial. From one news report, this move seems to have stymied State from again contesting Thomas's new trial.
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2012/jul/12/christiannewsom-slaying-suspect-demands-speedy/
More recently, the three named defendants' defense teams have decided to take the matter of Blackwood's recusal to the US Supreme Court, seeking a stay of the motion to recuse ;
The judge says all three of those defendants have filed notice that they will seek a stay in the proceedings to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The order says that needs to be done quickly.
"Now the defendants may have to look at what the Tennessee Supreme Court did and take that order and take it up to the United States Supreme Court and they have a strict deadline on that," [Richard] Gaines said.
http://www.wate.com/story/18847599/...in-christian-newsom-case?clienttype=printable
So, it's not clear why Blackwood has decided that Thomas is an exception to the TN Supreme Court's order to vacate (if that's the correct terminology). But it certainly has given the chance for:
1) Thomas's attys to block State by insisting on a speedy trial (I guess. lol)
2) strongly hinting to all 3 defendants that they take the recusal issue to the US Supreme Court even before that motion is heard in October. (I'm reading between the lines of his more recent "Corrected Order," page two, where it suddenly seems that the 3 teams are thinking about filing a writ with the US Supreme Court but the judge says make it snappy because there's deadline. Sounds like a little outside the courtroom conferencing here?)
For that document, see second hyperlink "Corrected Order" at:
http://www.wate.com/story/18847599/...in-christian-newsom-case?clienttype=printable
So far, at least, Coleman's new trial is going forward without undue complexity. So far.