home

Cory Maye Update

Radley Balko, the journalist-blogger who has relentlessly followed the unjust conviction and death (now life) sentence of Cory Maye in Mississippi, has just returned from his fifth trip there and a week of visiting with Cory's family. He provides a very moving update.

If you don't remember the details of Cory's case, TChris recounted them a while back:

The police broke down Maye's door during a drug raid in Mississippi. The officers claimed they knocked, but having gone to the trouble of securing a "no knock" warrant, that claim is suspect. Maye, not realizing that the people invading his house in the middle of the night were police officers and concerned about the safety of his young daughter, shot an intruder without realizing he was shooting a police officer. The officer turned out to be the son of the police chief. The police turned out to have busted down the wrong door; their warrant was for the adjoining unit in the duplex where Maye lived. Maye is black; the officer and jury were white; and Maye, who seems to have been acting in self-defense, was nonetheless sentenced to death.

Since then, Cory's death sentence was changed to life without parole. Radley writes that he's recently been moved to Parchman, Unit 32. [More...]

He’s trying to settle in to his new surroundings. He’s now at Unit 32 at Parchman Penitentiary, the hardest-knock wing of one of the hardest-knock prisons in the country. It’s the highest-security wing in the prison, save for Death Row. When it comes to living conditions, it’s likely worse. Lately, Unit 32 has had problems with rioting. There have been three inmate murders in the last two years. In a 2005 complaint, the ACLU described Unit 32 like this:
…profound isolation and unrelieved idleness; pervasive filth and stench; malfunctioning plumbing and constant exposure to human excrement … grossly inadequate medical, mental health and dental care; the routine use by security staff of excessive force; and the constant pandemonium, night and day, of severely mentally ill prisoners screaming, raving and hallucinating in nearby cells.”

Here's how Corey views it:

Even after his death sentence was tossed in the fall of 2006, Cory requested to remain on Death Row. He was isolated there. He could stay in his cell and read and watch TV. When I asked him about Death Row in September 2006, he actually said he had no complaints (though Bob Evans, Cory’s chief counsel, says he rarely complains about much of anything). He didn’t need to fear for his safety there—about getting beaten or raped. Cory’s a shy, gentle guy. It’s hard to see him thriving in the general population of a high-security prison unit. So he remained on Death Row until last month, when he received his new sentence, life without parole. He’ll now need to learn to live in the general population, with Mississippi’s worst of the worst.

Cory’s still isolated for now, which he says is common for newcomers to gen-pop at Parchman. He just enrolled in a GED program. And he’s hoping to land a job in the prison kitchen, so he’ll be able to cook again. In spite of the circumstances, the letter seemed upbeat.

Radley says:

Thank this war. The goddamned drug war. It is so incredibly senseless and stupid. And it’ll continue to claim and ruin lives, because too few politicians have the backbone to stand up and say after 30 years, $500 billion, a horrifyingly high prison population, and countless dead innocents, cops, kids, nonviolent offenders, decimated neighborhoods, wasted lives, corrupted cops, and eviscerations of the core freedoms this country was allegedly founded upon, the shit isn’t working. It’ll never work. It never has. It’s a testament to the facade of truth that is politics that no leaders from the two majors parties have in thirty years been able to say this. That maybe, just maybe, we’re doing it wrong. Maybe, just maybe, kicking down doors in the middle of the night and storming in with guns in order to stop people from getting high….isn’t such a good idea.

< Pending Mandatory Minimum Sentence Reduction Bills | Ask.com Goes Privacy Friendly >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    If I may (1.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Patrick on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 01:36:19 PM EST
    Corey is where he belongs.  The facts of the case are clear.  He shot a cop, who was serving a valid search warrant, signed by a judge.  The warrant was for Maye's apartment, a small amount of marijuana was found in his apartment.  The weapon he used to shoot the police officer was stolen.  Possession of a stolen firearm alone is reason enough for some, and maybe him, to use deadly force to avoid capture.  With just those facts, he's not the "innocent" wanna-be father that his advocates would like to portray him as.  

    If you want a look into his mindset, consider the permanent statement he made when he had, "High life" tattooed on his body.  In context, the meaning of that tattoo is clear.  Can people change?  Yes they can, but still using drugs and carrying stolen firearms is not indicative of a change IMO.

    If I may... (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Radley Balko on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:30:40 PM EST
    ....you're misinformed.

    The gun was reported stolen more than a year earlier, in a county 90 miles away.  There's no duty in Mississippi to investigate the source of a gun that comes into your possession.  People buy, sell, and exchange guns all the time down there. Cory's gun was given to him by a friend.  Cory wasn't charged with possession of a stolen gun because mere possession of a stolen gun isn't a crime in Mississippi.  And not only wasn't he charged, the trial judge ruled that the source of th gun was irrelevant and prejudicial, and excluded it from evidence.

    For Cory to "be where he belongs," you have to believe that a guy with no prior criminal record, who by all accounts was a good and loving father,  who had no disciplinary problems at school, knowingly and intentionally took on a raiding team of police officers, decided for no apparent reason that he wanted to kill one of them, knowingly initiated a shootout in the same room where his daughter was laying, shot just one of them, then immediately said "I'm sorry" and surrendered--with three bullets remaining in his gun.

    I find that absurd.  And knowing that Cory had a tattoo or occasionally recreationally smoked pot doesn't make any less absurd.

    The far more plausible explanation is that a guy who just moved out of his parents home into a low-income, high-crime neighborhood awoke to someone breaking into his apartment, grew frightened for himself and his daughter, fired when the door flew open, then surrendered and apologized the moment he realized the invaders were police.

    I don't know how well-read you are on the case, but there are significant questions about the warrant.  The informant whose tip led to the warrant is a racist retrograde who has repeatedly changed his story since Cory's defense team discovered his identity last year.  The most likely scenario culled from his and his brother's statements suggests the warrant on Cory's house may have been illegal.  Cory wasn't named in the warrant.  The warrant for Cory's apartment and for the apartment next to his describe the drugs allegedly spotted by the informant with identical wording.  The man who lived next to Cory, Jaimie Smith, who was also raided, was a known drug dealer with drug charges already pending against him.  Though police did find drugs Smith's apartment, he and his girlfriend--the only people other than Cory and the police to witness the raid--were conveniently allowed to leave the state, despite the charges pending against them.

    If you believe the mere presence of a warrant listing his address confirms Cory's guilt, you might do some reading on what happened in Atlanta last year.

    And then there's the matter of the town firing Bob Evans, the public defender, for representing Cory in his appeal (exactly what a public defender is supposed to do).  That's not the act of a town particularly interested in giving Cory a fair crack at justice, is it?

    Cory's not a depraved cop killer.  He's certainly not a threat to society.  He's a guy who is at worst guilty of an error in judgment, one made during extreme, volatile circumstances not of his making.

    Parent

    Be careful Radley (none / 0) (#34)
    by glanton on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:36:29 PM EST
    That there's "extremist" talk you're trading in.  

    Attending to the actual facts of the case, and all.

    ;-)


    Parent

    It matters not that YOU (none / 0) (#35)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:46:49 PM EST
     find it absurd or that you have sypmathy toward Corey and anomisity toward the war on drugs.

      I have a post below where I request some explanation of the arguments in favor of the position the guilt phase of his trial was not fair and what facts you use to support those arguments. That's what matters.

    Parent

    Radley, (none / 0) (#36)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:46:57 PM EST
    your version of the incident is widely quoted, and is steadfastly pointed out as being untrue.

    The cops had a warrant and the warrant was NOT a "no-knock" warrant.

    Do you still claim it WAS a "no-knock" warrant?

    Parent

    It doesn't matter... (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Radley Balko on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:08:16 PM EST
    ...what type of warrant it was (for the record, it was a standard search warrant).  The only thing that matters is if Cory knew they were police, and whether he knowingly and intentionally shot and killed a police officer.

    I've never written that the judge issued a no-knock warrant.  I have questioned whether or not the police at the scene properly announced themselves.  That's because I've talked to other people in the area who've been raided by local police who say they don't announce, or they announce as the door is coming down.  And because knowing what I now know of Cory, I simply don't believe he's capable of intentionally killing anyone, much less a police officer.

    As for what I've written being "steadfastly pointed out as untrue," I have no idea what you're talking about.  I made a few mistakes very early on in my reporting, due to some misleading information I got from Cory's trial lawyer.  But I corrected those within days.  To my knowledge, no one has raised any questions about the veracity of my reporting after those initial mistakes were corrected.

    Parent

    Fair enough. (none / 0) (#39)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:20:30 PM EST
    As for what I've written being "steadfastly pointed out as untrue," I have no idea what you're talking about.
    I was referring to the quote JM used in starting this thread. I thought it was yours, it turns out the quote is TChris's.

    My sincere apologies.

    And I agree, all that matters is whether he knew, or reasonably should have known, that they were police.

    Parent

    But... (none / 0) (#40)
    by desertswine on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:24:46 PM EST
    dammit... the tattoo.

    Parent
    Uh oh (none / 0) (#49)
    by Nowonmai on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 06:59:17 PM EST
    I have a few tattoos. Does that mean I am a possible cop killer?  :o

    Parent
    No, (none / 0) (#51)
    by Patrick on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 07:25:41 PM EST
    but they say something about you don't they?  Unless of course you got one of those chinese tattoos...In that case you probably have no idea what they spelled.

    Parent
    I had relatives with tattoos (none / 0) (#55)
    by jerry on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 10:07:30 PM EST
    I wonder what it said about them....  Oh....

    Yellow  Jew
    Brown     Gypsy
    Violet     Jehovah's Witness
    Pink     Homosexual
    Green     Habitual criminal
    Red     Political prisoner
    Black     Asocial
    Blue     Emigrant

    Parent

    Actually, yes (none / 0) (#57)
    by Nowonmai on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 03:10:19 AM EST
    I would know what it would say in Chinese Ideograms.

    But "High Life" doesn't only mean getting stoned. It also means the good life. You presumed he was a stoner.

    Even if it did mean stoner, there are millions of people, when younger, got a tattoo they regret later in life, but unlike Angelina Jolie, and other stars, can't afford to have them removed.

    Parent

    No, if I may... (none / 0) (#48)
    by Patrick on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 05:27:31 PM EST
    You call me misinformed?  Where have I claimed something as fact that was untrue?  The gun was stolen, the search warrant was valid, and not a no-knock warrant as you initially said, and continues to get reported here.  Again, where am I misinformed?  Perhaps you disagree with my inferences, but that doesn't make me misinformed.  

    Is possession of stolen property legal in Mississippi?  If not, then the point remains.  Since no one seems to care, why did he get the gun in the first place?  What need did he have for it?  Oh right cause he just moved out from his mommy's house into a low-income high crime area...Why can't he "remember" the name of the friend who gave it to him?  Of course the gun is not central to the case in point, but it and his convenient lack of clarity around it sure point to him being less than a law abiding citzen.

    For Corey to be where he belongs, all I have to believe is that he shot and killed a police officer who was doing his duty. And that he knew or should have known that he was.   I, and at least 12 others in Mississippi belive that.  I read the transcripts from the case.  There was more than just a breaking down of the door.  There was an attempt at one door then an entry through another.  There were marked police cars, and cops in uniform, and the sum of testimony, whether you believe it or not, is that they did announce themselves.  

    I don't know why Corey shot the cop or what he was thinking.  I do not believe that he was trying to protect his daughter.  If that had been his intention why would he had hidden with her on a bed for all intents and purposes in the direct line of fire?  Why didn't he tell these mysterious people who were breaking into his house that he had a gun and would use it.  If he or someone else wants to use that defense they have to answer those and other questions.  

    No I do not believe the presence of a warrant confirms anything other than there was probable cause for the police to obtain it.  Are you suggesting the police lied in their affidavit? There are questions about the warrant?  What I've read pretty much settled the questions about the warrants.  They've been reviewed by a competent court and found to be sufficient.  What facts do you have that prove otherwise?  

    So what if the informant is a racist?  That means exactly what to your point?  and is proven by his 45 second phone call?  The fact of the matter is the judge who signed the warrant testified in court that he did sing two warrants, once for each residence in the duplex.  I've said that.  

    Cory's not a depraved cop killer.  He's certainly not a threat to society.  He's a guy who is at worst guilty of an error in judgment, one made during extreme, volatile circumstances not of his making.

    Ah yes, the old "Cops made me do it" excuse.  Well, sir, that kind of error in judgement could result in the death of who else in the future if Corey's released?  You pikc up a gun and shoot a man, you better be damn sure who your shooting.  If that argument were used to defend a cop in these pages you be laughed out of the room.  

    In the end, I'd suggest that you are misinformed, or at least your judgement of the facts is colored by your need to defend your political positions regarding SWAT teams.  You have more to lose than I do with respect to presenting the facts of this case in a true light.   I should invite Patrick from Patterico over here enlighten the rest of the folks.  

    Parent

    Still misinformed... (none / 0) (#52)
    by Radley Balko on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 09:15:59 PM EST
    The identity of the informant wasn't discovered until four years after the trial, by a private investigator hired by Cory's defense team.  Therefore, the jury heard nothing about the fact the "trustworthy and reliable" informant (as he was described on the warrant) was unapologetically racist, or that that he has continually changed his story about what happened that night.

    From the raid until the informant was discovered the prosecution had said we'd "never know" the identity of the informant.  Why was that?  Because, they said, Officer Jones conducted the investigation, and only Officer Jones knew the identity of the informant, and Officer Jones is dead.  Curiously, he apparently took no notes, and kept no records of his investigation.  Sound credible to you?

    Your comment about my work on SWAT teams is also misinformed.  This raid wasn't conducted by a SWAT team.  It was conducted by an ad hoc group of police officers assembled at the last minute by Officer Jones.  Jones himself had no experience serving narcotics warrants.  Cory's door was kicked open not by a trained narcotics veteran, but by a volunteer police officer.  

    And yes, the informant's testimony last fall does raise significant questions about the legality of the warrant--questions that weren't raised at trial in 2003.

    I haven't even touched on the other troubling parts of the trial, such as the testimony of the medical examiner, who is nearly universally known among his peers to be a shill for prosecutors.

    Finally, I'm not the least bit concerned about what Patterico, a prosecutor, thinks of my work. I wouldn't expect him to be terribly fond of it.  

    Parent

    this (none / 0) (#53)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 09:29:32 PM EST
    "Finally, I'm not the least bit concerned about what Patterico, a prosecutor, thinks of my work. I wouldn't expect him to be terribly fond of it."

    is far more accepting of him than I would be. I wouldn't read, quote or rely on anything that blogger-prosecutor writes.  

    Parent

    I ask again (none / 0) (#64)
    by Patrick on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 12:04:35 PM EST
    You still haven't said where I'm misinformed. Could you please answer that question?

    From the raid until the informant was discovered the prosecution had said we'd "never know" the identity of the informant.  Why was that?

    That's an easy one, the prosecution didn't know who the informant was.  Do you have evidence from the PI that indicates otherwise?

    Your comment about my work on SWAT teams is also misinformed.  This raid wasn't conducted by a SWAT team.  It was conducted by an ad hoc group of police officers assembled at the last minute by Officer Jones.

    yes it wasn't a SWAT team, but I didn't say that.  I said your work.  That being said, you oppose vehemently SWAT style police tactics of which this was one.  I also doubt the Pearl River Narcotics team is an ad hoc team, but whatever, it's hadlr a salient point.  

    And if you care less what Patterico says about you, why do you respond time and time again?  

    Really, the only point I ask you to address is where am I misinformed.  

    Parent

    I've pointed out... (none / 0) (#65)
    by Radley Balko on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 12:31:38 PM EST
    ...several points where you're misinformed.

    Here's yet another:

    That being said, you oppose vehemently SWAT style police tactics of which this was one.  I also doubt the Pearl River Narcotics team is an ad hoc team, but whatever, it's hadlr a salient point.

    I find it hard to believe you actually read the trial transcripts, as you say you did.  This raid was not conducted by the Pearl River Basin Narcotics Task Force.  Officer Ron Jones directed this raid himself, with the help of five other officers he cobbled together over a couple of hours.  Only one of the six was a member of the task force. The raid was not conducted as part of the task force, or with the blessing of the task force, or under the auspices of the task force.  They didn't use task force equipment.  Other than one of its members volunteering to ride along, the task force had nothing to do with it.

    If you're unclear on an aspect of the case that's this basic and fundamental, I find it hard to believe you're as read up on the case as you claim to be.

    Parent

    Radley (none / 0) (#66)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 12:34:56 PM EST
    do you know of any links to court and police docs? I couldn't find any on your site.

    Parent
    mayisinnocent.com used to have (none / 0) (#67)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 12:36:19 PM EST
    lots of docs, but that site seems to be gone now.

    Parent
    Radley says.... (none / 0) (#68)
    by Patrick on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 07:06:08 PM EST
    If you're unclear on an aspect of the case that's this basic and fundamental, I find it hard to believe you're as read up on the case as you claim to be.

    But it took him until December 21, 2005 to "clarify" that fact for himself. Hell, even Maye's attorney thought it was true.  So I guess that makes him misinformed as well.  I guess you weren't as read up the case as you claimed to be either.  I guess that's what I get for not checking your facts.  

    Here's the pertinent part....

    I originally reported that the raid was largely conducted by the Pearl River Basin Narcotics Task Force, who asked Officer Jones to come along. That came from my conversations with Rhonda Cooper, Maye's first attorney, as well as a December 29, 2001 article from the Hattiesburg American which said that Jones conducted the raid with "eight other officers who were also from the Pearl River Basin Narcotics Task Force and the Jefferson Davis County Sheriff's Department."

    That article wasn't quite right, and neither was I.

    As it turns out, only one officer from the narcotics task force went along on the raid. Jones seems to have assembled an ad-hoc team of eight police officers to conduct the raid, including himself;



    Parent
    No, he isn't (none / 0) (#50)
    by Nowonmai on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 07:05:44 PM EST
    He shot an home invader, who didn't identify himself as a police officer.

    The gun was stolen from elsewhere YEARS before he got it. He didn't steal it. Guns are frequently bought and sold at open air markets in Mississippi and other southern states.

    I have two tattoos... does that make me a suspect and needing to be in prison?  If I go with your rather judgmental comment about tattoos, yes.

    Black man, in prison for shooting the white cop, who was the police chiefs' son, and you don't think his sentence was over the top in harshness?  Can I borrow your rose colored glasses?

    Parent

    I read it last night... (none / 0) (#1)
    by Packratt on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 11:47:33 PM EST
    It was a very convincing and moving piece.

    While I've been a critic of libertarianism in the past, especially on my blog, I have to say that Radley's devotion to rights issues and injustices have really moved me to reconsider my criticism.

    Heck, he even did a piece on my case too.

    the major difference (none / 0) (#2)
    by cpinva on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 12:33:54 AM EST
    between prohibition (the volstead act) and the "war on drugs", is that the use of alcohol was glamorized in the popular mythology; sophisticated (white) ladies and gents sipping their martinis, while listening to jazz at fancy nightclubs. don't we all want to be one of them?

    drug use has universally been portrayed as nearly satanic, the cause of the ruin of countless (minority) lives and families. much easier to get the general population behind a "war" on something they know little about, and have been trained to be scared sh*tless of.

    good luck getting any politician to vote against those "evil" drugs, while enjoying a drink of their legal drug of choice.

    So you don't (none / 0) (#3)
    by Patrick on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 10:41:51 AM EST
    believe that drug addiction ruins a higher percentage of user's lives than alcohol?  The way I see it, addiction is the problem...Most drugs users are addicts...most alcohol drinkers are not.  

    Parent
    My personal experience says.... (none / 0) (#4)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 10:51:26 AM EST
    poppycock.  Most drug users are certainly not addicts, as most alcohol users are not alcoholics.  

    Granted, my personal experience is with marijuana, cocaine, pill, and psychedlic users....not heroin or meth.

    Parent

    Prison Ruins More Lives (none / 0) (#7)
    by squeaky on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 11:33:16 AM EST
    Than drugs do. But I am glad to see that you have come to understand that drug abuse is a medical problem. The logical conclusion to this obvious fact is to treat it as a medical problem not a criminal one.

    Parent
    Drug addiction (none / 0) (#16)
    by Patrick on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 12:48:43 PM EST
    Not drug abuse is the problem.  I believe they are two separate issues

    Parent
    Splitting Hairs? (none / 0) (#43)
    by squeaky on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:51:51 PM EST
    OK, they are two separate medical problems and should be dealt with as such. Criminalizing the problems does nothing to help and only adds harm.

    Parent
    Who says most drug users are addicts? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 11:01:01 AM EST
     Even if we accept that as true with no evidence, as alcohol is more widely used than illegal drugs what are the numbers in absolute terms of people addicted to alcohol as compare to people addicted to illegal drugs?

      Why are not the problems associated with use of alcohol (or illegal drugs) by non-addicts not significant? If someone dies of an ocverdose or injures himself or others under the influence is it less important?

      What about the addicts of both  who don't ruin their lives? I've known "drunks and druggies"  who manage to maintain professional and personal lives despite chronic and severe abuse that would be described as indication of addiction by most.

      I'm not minimizing the dangers of drug abuse. I'm just suggesting that one of the most dangerous drugs in terms of acute and chronic effects and the "fall-out" upon others close to the abuser is alcohol.

    But you are (none / 0) (#6)
    by Patrick on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 11:29:32 AM EST
    I'm not minimizing the dangers of drug abuse. I'm just suggesting that one of the most dangerous drugs in terms of acute and chronic effects and the "fall-out" upon others close to the abuser is alcohol.

    I would say the exact opposite is true.   It's the, and I'll qualify this, non-functioning drug addicts, who do the greatest damage to their families and communities.  The only proof I can give you is my experience dealing with it time and time again. I'm sure there are studies out there, but I have neither the time or inclination to look them up.  

    I will grant that non-functioning alcoholics cause a similar amount of damage, but I believe drugs addiction poses a greater danger for moving one into the non-functioning addict category.

    But even if what you say is true, wouldn't the legalization of drugs cause a suge in the numbers making the devastation equal.  I mean there are some people who don't use simply because it's illegal, and some of them would become addicted.  Or don't you believe that?  

    Parent

    I don't believe that..... (none / 0) (#9)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 11:54:45 AM EST
    anytime I've offered a toke to somebody and they declined, the reason given was "I don't smoke" or "I don't like pot"....never have I heard "No thanks, that is illegal".  

    imo, any increase in drug abuse, as well as simple drug use, due to legalization would be minor.  Either you like substance x or you don't...the legality of it is irrelevant, as proven by the millions of pot smokers in this country.

    Neither of us can go by experience alone Pat...you always deal (or dealt, I know you're doing different things now) with the dregs of drug taking society, I always deal with regular nice folks who enjoy a buzz, and friendly neighborhood dealers.  

    It would be wild for the two of us to switch places for a week, and see how it changes our perspectives.

    Parent

    That (none / 0) (#19)
    by Patrick on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 12:58:44 PM EST
    would be kind of fun, but I'm sure I would then cast of my repressed lifestyle and perhaps become cool.   Oh the horror!

    Yes I do deal with the bottom, and I can agree that the problem with drugs is not their reponsible recreational use.  If only everyone were that way in all aspects of their life, then I could truly worry about being out of job.  But that's a bit utopian for me to really have to worry about.  Until then and as I have said before, with the exception of medical marijuana, California has a pretty good drug policy, that addresses reduced criminal penalties for simple possession of all drugs, and has basically legalized less than an ounce of pot.  

    Parent

    You're already cool brother.... (none / 0) (#25)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:12:24 PM EST
    for an officer of the law that is:)

    Parent
    I've dealt with it time and time (none / 0) (#45)
    by jondee on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 04:16:43 PM EST
    again also and I'd say Decons closer to the mark.

    Not that there's no truth in what Patrick says.

    We wont even get into the behavorial problems when one is "under the influence". Alchohol wins the award for enabling episodes of impulsive, belligerent, violent acting out hands down, in my experience.

    Parent

    Someone mentioned the Karla Faye Tucker (none / 0) (#46)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 04:26:09 PM EST
    case a few days ago. I have no convictions as to whether alc or the harder drugs (not weed) are more violence-enabling, but that case certainly does not lend one to believe  that alc is inherently more of an violence enabler than the harder drugs.

    Parent
    Funny (none / 0) (#8)
    by Patrick on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 11:45:18 AM EST
    No mention that the gun used by Maye was stolen.  Radley is well known for conveniently framing a story to support his political views.  Here's a link to a TL thread that discusses this case, and the lies used by those trying to get maye released

    Then charge him with having stolen a gun (none / 0) (#23)
    by glanton on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:01:12 PM EST
    Fine (none / 0) (#24)
    by Patrick on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:12:15 PM EST
    and since he killed someone, using your simple logic, he is right where he should be as well.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#26)
    by glanton on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:17:17 PM EST
    He didn't just "kill someone."  It's not as if he stole the gun (if he did indeed steal it) and then went out and shot a cop with it.

    They barged in on him, he and his family asleep, he didn't know who they were.

    Obviously the fact that he ought never to have been disturbed in the first place pales before your clannish loyalty.

    Nice.  

    Parent

    Sure (none / 0) (#28)
    by Patrick on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:24:28 PM EST
    If you say so.  Thankfully the jury and many out there disagree with your view and rightly so.  I take comfort that your extremism is in the minority.  

    Parent
    Extremism (none / 0) (#31)
    by glanton on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:29:46 PM EST
    Is an interesting word choice, insofar as I am simply representing what happened.

    But then, I've heard police officers on national television speak of the Miranda laws as extremist.    

    And, a lot of people (yourself included?) think people who viedotape police brutality are "extremists," too.

    Parent

    One thing I'm fairly sure of.... (none / 0) (#29)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:24:48 PM EST
    Without prohibition, it is likely the slain officer would be alive and Maye would not be rotting in a cage.

    Parent
    It's probably (none / 0) (#10)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 11:58:54 AM EST
      true that the reason illegal drugs are less widely used is the illegality. I do suspect that if currently illegal drugs were legalized we would see an increase in the numbers of problems caused by them.

      I don't advocate outright legalization for any currently illegal drug other than marijuana, which i believe is indisputably less dangerous than alcohol any way you want to look at it (to the extent there is any truth to the "gateway" theory,  I think that is due to the fact marijuana is illegal and thus puts its procurers at gates through which other drugs pass and if it was sold as is alcohol the  people would not be at those gates).

      I don't have an answer for the drug problem and I don't minimize the extreme harm caysed many people directly and indirectly by drug abuse. 25 years ago, I tended to think outright  legalization was a good idea but age, wisdom and much experience viewing people whose lives have been ruined have led me to conclude that the simple-minded "legalize it" solution to a very complex problem would do more harm than good.

      On the other hand, I think it is equally true that our current simple-minded "lock 'em up for punishment" approach does more harm than good.

     I often point out here that people mislead by grossly overstating criminal sanctions for mere users in an effort to make it sound as if snorting a line or hitting the pipe is risking prison and the serious penalties are directed almost exclusively at those involved in distribution, but the fact is many people distribute only to maintain their own habit and not to make money, and those people often do often face incredibly severe punishment.

      I don't favor legalization but I do favor major reform where those motivated by the need for drugs are not imprisoned but referred for treatment. Treatment has a very poor record of success but giving people an opportunity to change before imposing severe punishment is humane and just in my opinion.

     

    My only real problem is with this statement (none / 0) (#17)
    by Patrick on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 12:53:13 PM EST
    but the fact is many people distribute only to maintain their own habit and not to make money, and those people often do often face incredibly severe punishment.

    In my experience, it's not because they don't want to make money....It's because their addiction causes them to use the profits and they end up being a maintenance dealer.  

    Parent

    I can't speak for your experiences (none / 0) (#20)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 01:11:44 PM EST
      but in mine, I have known exponentially more people whose initiation into drugs was using them who began pedlling small quantities to support habit than I have known people who began by selling for profit and ran into trouble smoking up the profit.

      One of the things I learned many years ago is that most of the "successful" dealers seem not to use hard drugs and merely sell them and perhaps smoke a lot of weed. I also have seen that the "successful" dealers often have a great deal of contempt for the "crackheads" they employ as runners, middle-men, etc.

       That's not to say that the phenomenon of "messing up the money" by consuming the wares does not exist, but generally, in my experience people with such tendencies are not often admitted to even the middle echelon let alone the upper echelons of the drug trade.

    Parent

    I think we're closer than we see (none / 0) (#21)
    by Patrick on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 01:28:02 PM EST
    One of the things I learned many years ago is that most of the "successful" dealers seem not to use hard drugs and merely sell them and perhaps smoke a lot of weed. I also have seen that the "successful" dealers often have a great deal of contempt for the "crackheads" they employ as runners, middle-men, etc.

    Absolutely true in my experience, no argument.  They are the toughest to catch too, and get the best lawyers, cause they have $$.  But I think this is the top 1% of 1% (Just a figure of speech not actual numbers).  The vast majority I believe, don't start out as drug dealers to as part of their career plan.  I wasn't trying to say that.  I was saying that the vast number of street/mid level dealers, are users who got the bright idea that they could sell and make money while maintianing their habit, and eventually, as with all drugs that build tolerences, their access got them into using more and more, until at some point most will become or have become the "Crackheads" they disdain.  And of course they get caught cause they're in public whacked out, carrying sale weight, or their greed and lack of discipline causes them to sell to someone they shouldn't have.  The top of the heap here is a completely different story, and of course there are exceptions to every generalization.  I'm just sayin'  


    Parent

    the ones I meet (none / 0) (#33)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:35:14 PM EST
     have been caught, hence the meeting.

      It's nowhere near as limited to the top 1% of 1%, which would mean only 1/10,000 in the drug trade. That would mean that even if we assume there are 10 million people involved in the distribution of drugs, there are only a 1000 of those folks. I have no stats, but were that true I have coincidentally represented an extraordinarily high proportion of them considering I am one person in a relatively small city and I have represented dozens who fit that description.

    Parent

    and it should be:
    The officers claimed they knocked, but having gone to the trouble of securing a "no knock" warrant, that claim is suspect.
    then, imo, the following statement should also be conditional in order to be acceptable., ie.:
    Maye, [claiming that he did not realize] that the people invading his house in the middle of the night were police officers and concerned about the safety of his young daughter, shot an intruder without realizing, [he claims], he was shooting a police officer.

    The cops claim they announced, Maye claims they didn't. Both sides have motivation to lie.

    that Patrick linked to above.

    Apparently the claim that the cops had a "no knock" warrant is untrue and therefor it is unreasonable to believe that the cops didn't announce.

    Parent

    If I recall correctly, (none / 0) (#12)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 12:24:15 PM EST
      this passage was also previously shown to be rife with errors.

    The police broke down Maye's door during a drug raid in Mississippi. The officers claimed they knocked, but having gone to the trouble of securing a "no knock" warrant, that claim is suspect. Maye, not realizing that the people invading his house in the middle of the night were police officers and concerned about the safety of his young daughter, shot an intruder without realizing he was shooting a police officer. The officer turned out to be the son of the police chief. The police turned out to have busted down the wrong door;

      Was it not shown that the warrant did not authorize "no knock" entry and that there were warrants for each of the adjoining units?

      It's bad enough when this site posts misinformation which perhaps not coincidentally always seem to provide support for its positions, but when there is a consistent refusal to correct the recors-- and sometimes, including as recently as yesterday, deletion of comments correcting the records, a tremendous amount of credibility is sacrificed. In the long run such tactics rarely prevail.

    Yes, Decon, those factual errors were (none / 0) (#14)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 12:33:19 PM EST
    pointed out in the previous thread.

    imo, Jeralyn's not usually nearly as "loose" with the facts as TChris and Balko, so my guess is that she, as I did, forgot about those untruths that were identified in the previous thread.

    Perhaps she'll re-read that thread?

    Parent

    with TChris's. I have no reason to think Balko is misrepresenting the facts. My apologies for using his name in my post above.

    Parent
    The undisputed facts (none / 0) (#27)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:19:17 PM EST
     appear to be that he shot a police officer acting in in the perforomance of his official duties.

      It would appear that the only questions would go to mens rea and justification issues. He had a trial and it appears that the jury was persuaded he did not act in justifiable self-defense or defense of others and that it was not a mistake or accident, etc.

      Upon review, it was determined that he did not receive effective assistance of counsel in the capital sentencing phase and the death sentence was vacated and he was sentenced to life.

      Obviously, the jury resolved issues pertaining to credibility against him. That's the province of juries. The trial court on a motion for nre trial or JOA and appellate courts are not to disturb the credibility determinations of juries unless those  determinations are found to rest on no rational basis.

     In the absence of other issues showing he did not receive a fair trial, that people who were not on the jury have a different view of credibility is of little moment. What if any issues were presented tending to show that he did not receive a fair trial with regard to the guilt phase of the trial?

      Without some exposition of the actual issues with relevance to review of the merits of the argument he did not receive a fair trial this whole exercise is pointless.

    And I can live with that. (none / 0) (#30)
    by Patrick on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:26:09 PM EST
    I do wonder if the IAC wasn't a defense tactic.

    Parent
    not unless his lawyer (none / 0) (#47)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 04:28:18 PM EST
      was insane.

      Doing something (or failing to do something) so incredibly stupid it is entirely without rational justification (paraphrasing slightly Strickland) in the hopes that will provide the client with a winning issue on appeal would be utterly crazy.

      First, even assuming the inexcusability of the lawyer's error or omission was beyond dispute, there is no guarantee will find it be "prejudicial" meaning there is a substantial possibility that but for the error the outcome would have been different. In the absence of the latter there is no new trial granted.

       Second, that is exactly what one usually gets -- a new trial not an acquittal-- Here the error was found in the sentencing phase and it is not clear from what is written here whether he received a new sentencing phase which resulted in a life sentence , the court imposed life as it is accorded that power under State law in such circumstances, or the life sentence was imposed by agreement in lieu of a new setnecing phase.

      Deliberately doing something stupid that leads to your client getting the death penalty in the hopes it will result in a lesser sentence upon review is something only a crazy person would do. a sane person would try to get the best outcome in the first instance and not risk the death sentence being upheld-- not to mention the sanctions the lawyer could face.

    Parent

    hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm (none / 0) (#38)
    by cpinva on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:18:24 PM EST
    an all white jury, a white police officer, son of the local police chief, in mississippi. yeah, i am truly convinced he received a fair trial, before an impartial jury of his peers.

    i am also convinced that santa claus is gonna shimmy down my chimney, with that new, $1,200 extreme core duo cpu i've been wanting.

    i am easily convinced.

    I believe the "all white jury" (none / 0) (#42)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:26:01 PM EST
     claim was also shot down as untrue. that's the problem here the "facts" of this case have been so distorted by folks with an agenda we have trouble even learning what they are. (with respect to Radley above, that is not aimed at you as I have no idea what you have and have not reported-- i'm just talking about here which is the entirety of my exposure)

      I will once again ask what are the issues presented to make the case the guilt phase of the trial was unfair. I'm not asking for people to spout assumptions and prejudices and generalized attacks on Mississippi. I'm asking what occurred at the trial that arguably deprived this man of his right to a fair trial. I can have -- and no one else should have-- any opinion about that without some information about what actually happened. I know that waiting for actual facts is not as fun as assuming everything occurs in perfect synchronicity with one's particular world-view, but we really don't need to discuss particular real world events to display our prejuicices. Maybe we should start a thread dedicated to just that and get it out of our systems.

    Parent

    Corrections (none / 0) (#44)
    by squeaky on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 04:01:30 PM EST
    From Radley Balko site.
    Maye was not convicted by an all white jury. Two black women sat on the jury that convicted him. The remainder of the jury was white.


    Parent
    Thanks, Radley (none / 0) (#54)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 09:30:44 PM EST
    for stopping by and contributing. If anything in the post TChris or I wrote is wrong, please let me know and I'll make the correction and note it.

    JM, are you kidding?! How about (none / 0) (#56)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 10:45:02 PM EST
    It doesn't matter... (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Radley Balko on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:08:16 PM EST

    ...what type of warrant it was (for the record, it was a standard search warrant).  

    ie., NOT a "no-knock."

    And:

    If I may... (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Radley Balko on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:30:40 PM EST: [snip]

     If you believe the mere presence of a warrant listing his address confirms Cory's guilt, you might do some reading on what happened in Atlanta last year.

    iow, there WAS a warrant for his apartment.

    And, lastly:

    Corrections (none / 0) (#44)
    by squeaky on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 04:01:30 PM EST

    From Radley Balko site.
    Maye was not convicted by an all white jury
    . Two black women sat on the jury that convicted him. The remainder of the jury was white.

    ie., the jury was NOT all-white, the link to Radley's words on his site are in squeaky's comment if you doubt her.

    Please don't make me eat my words in support of you:

    Yes, Decon, those factual errors were (none / 0) (#14)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 12:33:19 PM EST

    pointed out in the previous thread.
    imo, Jeralyn's not usually nearly as "loose" with the facts as TChris

    Please make the corrections and note them as you said you would...

    Parent
    No revisions to the post-- (none / 0) (#69)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 09:37:14 AM EST
     and we know SHE has read the comments, but how many people might only read post which she has been informed is inaccurate in several extremely important respects.

    Parent
    Disappointing. Very disappointing. (none / 0) (#70)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 12:05:14 PM EST
    One more time (none / 0) (#58)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 07:26:21 AM EST
      What are the bases for the argument Maye did not receive a fair trial during thw guilt phase?

      In terms of proof, as in all cases involving determinations of mental states, a jury must make inferences from the evidence presented at trial. There is no method for looking into a person's mind and downloading a stored image of his mental stateat the moment of the act. Where one side presents the argument an act was knowing and intentional and without justification  the other argues the act was doe without knowledge and intent or was justified, what we need to know is what evidence each side presented to support the inferences it wished the jury to provide.

      Then we need to know if the jury did not hear evidence probative to possible inferences due to either rulings of the court or failures of counsel. We also need to know if the jury was allowed to hear evidence it should not have heard because it either wasn't relevant or the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion, misleading, etc. substantiall outweighed it's probative value.

      If there is some evidence tending to show the jury was prejudiced either by exposure to extra-judicial information about the case or more generalized attitudes and beliefs, we need to hear it and not allow the sort of prejudices that are supposed to be ferreted out (It's Mississippi rednecks framing a black man, etc) lead us to conclusions with no evidentiary support.
       The man was convicted of intentional homicide of a police officer. That means the jury was persuaded that knowing  the target was a police officer Maye used a deadly weapon with appreciation of the likelihood death or serious injury could result. There appears to have been ample evidence presented to support that theory and evidently the jury found the evidence persuasive.

     He was not convicted of any of the possible lesser homicide offenses. Was the jury instructed as to any lesser included offenses? If not, why not? Tactical decision of the defense? Failure of the defense to understand lesser includeds might be implicated Refusal of the court to instruct?

      These are just a few examples of the type of information needed to asses this case.

      All I see here is one guy writing that he believes the defendant, and others due to predisposition agreeing or disagreeing with him based on little or no knowledge of what happened at the trial. It's not entirely clear to me but it seems that Radley may not have attended any of the trial let alone all of it, so it seems an exraorinary leap of faith to assume he is in a better position to assess the credibility of the witnesses and the persuasiveness of the evidence than the jurors who actually heard the testimony and had opportunity to assess the demeanor of the witnesses. One taking on this heavy burden of retrospective, second-hand reassessment, needs to do a lot more than "I like and believe the guy and find the version accepted by the jury implausible.

     

    Questions..... (none / 0) (#59)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 08:53:10 AM EST
    Does anyone know if there were any bullets left in Maye's gun?  If yes, that would lead me to believe he stopped shooting once he knew the home invaders were in fact police officers.

    Also, did the cops fire any shots?  If they didn't, that would always lead me to believe Maye's version of the events.  Because if they announced themselves as police and were fired upon, I think they would have returned fire immediately.  

    Maye shot 3x, according to Wiki. (none / 0) (#61)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 11:25:37 AM EST
    ...and the cops did not return fire. (none / 0) (#63)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 12:03:16 PM EST
    However, presumably, since they were not in the room w/Maye and Prentis, they did not immediately know who fired at whom.

    Parent
    I recall (none / 0) (#60)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 09:27:00 AM EST
      that it was written somewhere here that Maye did not empty his gun, and as it has never been mentioned that the police returned fire, one would assume they didn't as that would have been a hugely salient fact regardless of which way one wanted to use it.

      Most of what is being discussed here is of little or no probative value with regard to the ultimate issue. The whole shebang about the SW is really largely a red herring.

      The validity or invalidity of the warrant could have no impact on Maye's mental state. If he did not know the victim was an officer and reasonably apprehended fear of death or serious injury to himself or others he would be justified in shooting even if the warrant was perfectly valid. Conversely, a defective warrant would not be justification for shooting a person he knew was an officer.

       Indirectly, the warrant might have some relatively slight inferential value in that if it was an invalid warrant or the police did in fact have the wrong residence, a juror might but would not be inescapably compelled to conclude it was less likely he knew it was the cops as compared to if the warrant was based upon probable cause and named that residence because in the latter the juror might, but again would not be compelled to infer, that Maye had reason to expect it was the police. In my opinion both of those are exceedingly weak inferences both ways.

      As the jury heard testimony about the events at the scene in the moments before shooting, it is diffcult to believe that exceedingly weak indirtect inferences would have made a diffference when the logical conclusion is the jury would base its decision on what it believed actually happened  at the scene that would have or would not have made him aware it was the police.

       I'd tend to agree that Maye's not firing all his rounds supports an inference he did not know it was the police but, I don't think it is such a strong inference as would necessarily outweigh other inferenceds drawn from other facts. We still don't know what other facts were presented though.

      As for the police not shooting back, I'd suspect  most people would be more likely to draw inferences unfavorable to Maye from that. That he shot a cop and lived to tell, militates against an inference of gung-ho out-of-control cops terrorizing an innocent man. It also might suggest to some the police were not acting in a manner with a reasonable apprehension of imminent harm to Maye. some might even state think that if it was an unannounced entry the police would certainly have weapons deployed precisely because they don't want to get shot and would understand the chances of that are significantly greater if they do not announce prior to entry.

      What we need is a thorough summary of what Maye and other witnesses including the police or anyone else present testified happened at the scene?

      I have no dog in this fight, and am certainly not predisposed to believe the police, but so far i have seen nothing here other than a writer saying he believes the self-serving version provided over the defendant.  There may well be excellent reasons to believe him but they have not been provided thus far.

     

    What we need is a thorough summary of what Maye and other witnesses including the police or anyone else present testified happened at the scene?
    linked on Balko's site, and maybe some others. They seem to have been taken down, today I couldn't find any anywhere.

    Parent
    That's because it (none / 0) (#71)
    by Patrick on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 01:12:49 PM EST
    was getting to hard to reconcile the truth with the story Radley and the rest want you to believe.  

    Parent