What does the NRA say about this? After all, no gun, no dead cop.

So, to any lawyers out there:

If you go to trial before a jury for a crime and then it becomes clear that the Jury was biased against you, or that they were too incompetent to consider the charges, or whatever, is it valid to use that as grounds for an appeal? Or is it just the responsibility of your lawyer to make sure that the jury is competent during the juror selection process, and after that the conduct of the jury is irrelevant to their decision?

Also, I believe that the Judge does instruct the Jury as to what is and isn't acceptable grounds for their final decision. Are these instructions binding? It seems like they would be, and so unless the Judge specifically instructed the Jury to take the personality of the defendant and their lawyer into account it seems like grounds for an appeal.

Just curious.

Why didn't the cops announce themselves? Isn't it standard procedure when entering a residence without prior notice? If the cops failed to follow proper procedure, then the death of the officer is a regrettable, but entirely foreseeable, consequence of that and Maye shouldn't be charged.

Ruck, that's exactly what you have to show to get a reversal on the merits, that the verdict or sentence could only have been the result of bias, passion, etc. on the part of the jury. It's a very heavy burden on the convicted person's part.

While Maye's chances on appeal are not hopeless, it's all a lot harder once a jury has reached a verdict. They are the "finders of fact" and courts defer heavily to them---otherwise, you have to admit, there wouldn't be much left of trial by jury.

Sounds like a pretty clear cut case to me Kevin. Cory Maye was a drug abuser and drug dealer who was high on drugs. The police broke in to his house because he was doing criminal behavior. Cory Maye shoots and kills a police officer and the police have to beat him up to hold him off because he was high on drugs. It's a pretty open and shut case to me.

It almost seems to me like anyone would be justified in firing on police who are doing a no-knock search of their house. If guys with guns break in and their only warning is a shout of "Police!", it wouldn't be enough to convince me to put down my gun.

I think that, generally speaking, things in the jury room are off limits for appeals.

The Cory Maye case makes me think there should be like a top-ten list of questionable death penalty cases. Does anyone know if there is anything like that out there?

It also seems likely to me that Mr. Maye did not hear the police announce themselves, or misheard them.

On what grounds were the police granted a warrant to search Maye's home? He didn't have a police record and was unconnected to the guy they were after.

The whole point of a late night/early morning raid is to catch people asleep or off guard. Shouting "Police!!" (assuming they actually did so) while kicking down a door and storming a house is no guarantee that the people inside will register that the armed men are cops, particularly if that happens to be what wakes you up.

The second warrant just shows the cops knew it was a duplex, not that they did any investigation whatsoever on who lived on the other side.

investigators initially reported that they found no drugs in Maye's house but then mysteriously found some the next day; and Maye was apparently beaten pretty thoroughly by police after he was arrested. Oh, and the police officer was the son of the police chief; he was white; Maye is black; and the Mississippi jury was mostly white

So who do you call to protect you from these criminals? There's no one.

That's what the second amendment is for. If a cop commits a crime that threatens me and/or my family, I will kill him if that's what it takes to stop him.

It is beneath the dignity of an American to submit to a criminal just because he's wearing a badge.
.

Ruck:

The judge's instructions are binding, but the jury can take personality into account in assessing credibility. There's really no way to attack a ruling based on prejudice unless you can show the judge kept you from removing biased jurors, or that the ruling could not have been based on any reasonable view of the evidence.

MJ Memphis:

The cops say they did announce themselves; Maye says he never heard them do so.

josef:

Go read Radley Balko's most recent account; he's got links to the underlying documents.

AL: It's a pretty open and shut case to me.

"No-knock" warrants are increasingly common, especially in drug cases. The theory is that they a) prevent suspects from disposing of their stashes, b) prevent suspects from fleeing via other exits, and c) prevent suspects from getting their arsenals ready to assault incoming police.

Of course, what appears to have happened here is also a fairly predictable outcome--the suspect, thinking that someone is trying to break in, fires on entering cops in what he believes to be self-defense, although, even if guilty, he was unlikely to fire on police given the likely consequences of firing vs. not-firing.

If a rapist or burglar shouts "Police!" before bursting through a woman's door, whereupon she shoots and kills him immediately, is she guilty of murder if she admits he, though lying, had claimed to be a police officer? If not, why should she be guilty if it had been an actual officer?

This isn't technically a "no-knock" case but it shows the ridiculousness of the technicality. Announcing "Police" and than immediately entering isn't really notice that police are entering unless you are awake enough to understand what they are yelling the first time they yell it. Many (most? all?) people who are awakened by a shout won't understand what they initial shout communicated. Entering a house like that late at night is not good policy and is not clear evidence that the person had actual notice that the people breaking in were police. If you have a good faith reason to believe that the people entering your house are doing so illegally, you have a good argument that the shooting was self defense. This seems to be possible because Maye shot the first person who entered the room, but did not keep shooting once it was clearer that the people entering were the police.

Also suggesting that they weren't expecting anyone in the Maye house is the fact that the drug agents let Jones go in to the house first and that Jones did not bother drawing his weapon.

Recently I was called to be on a jury panel. I wasn't selected but had to sit through the initial proceedings while the accused was led in and had the charges read against him. It was a domestic abuse and stalking case. Now I’m a liberal-minded Canadian, I believe in innocence until proven guilty and all that, but as I listened to the long list of charges, and looked at the disheveled defendant in handcuffs, I thought "the son of a bitch looks guilty".

Now if a guy like me can jump to conclusions that quickly, I can only imagine the emotional baggage that white jurors in Mississippi would feel towards a young black accused of killing a white cop who was the son of the police chief.

I’m against the death penalty for many reasons, but the consequences of mistaken judgment is one of the main reasons. It was largely because of one such case, Steven Truscott, that Canada abolished the death penalty about 35 years ago. Since then we have mistakenly sent people to jail for murder (e.g. Milgaard, Marshall, Morin), but fortunately they were able to be released when exonerated.

Oh, and if you ever happen to tried before a jury, get a haircut and a clean shave, and wear a jacket and tie. It will help prevent you from being pre-judged by “liberal rednecks” like me.

Joe Canuck -

I think I can top that. I was called to jury duty a couple of years ago, and I did serve. The case was civil, not criminal, and when I heard who was suing whom, and for what, I thought "Come on! That's just stupid."

Damned if after 3 days of evidence, I didn't vote the exact opposite to my original off-the-cuff assessment of the case.

I guess that's the trouble with evidence. And with having an open mind.

Kevin:
You really do live in a bubble. It is not at all uncommon for police to skip the announcement as they go in to a drug bust, because they dont want to leave even a second for evidence to be destroyed. If they find drugs that makes it all the more easy to win the he said/she said of whether they announced themselves, usually at an evidentiary hearing before a judge rather than a self defense case as here.

Furthermore, even if they do announce, you may note that there is no requirement to verify that any/all parties in the building have heard them. So, how loud do they have to be? Loud enough to be heard across an open room? Loud enough to be heard through a door? Loud enough to be heard through a door and down a hall and through another door? I submit that to achieve the last, in a duplex, could well require a megaphone if the police only announce once at the door.

The police in the Maye case I'm sure just thought it was another punk drug bust: failures of procedure without third party witnesses "never happened" when its police testimony against that of a defendant fighting to stay out of jail or save his life. We'll never know wether they yelled an announcement, mumbled it to doormat, or sent it forth by esp.

The lesson of the OJ aquittal still holds today. Furman failed to follow proper procedures for securing evidence because he was used to not following procedures because it made his job simpler and the biased system always believed him or allowed him to get away with cutting corners. The upshot was that it left the door open for a super crack defense team.

Also, hearing about that God stuff in the defense attorney's closing argument makes me suspicious about how competent that attorney was to handle a death penalty case.

I still dont understand what motive the jury could have imputed to the guy to want to KNOWINGLY shoot a policeman in the gut while laying in bed with his 18 month old baby - after hearing that those entering were police. I guess in Mississipi they just think black people just think differently from other folks.

I agree with Al.

P.S. I guess Mississipi juries just believe black men can't control themselves:

- when they see a cop they have to kill, no matter how senseless

- when they see a white women they have to rape, no matter how inconsistant it is with rhyme or reason.

Motive is easy to establish based on long standing PROVEN psychological principles of race behavior.

Kevin, this is a tangential and only semi-serious comment, but ... your use of the term "niggle" in this context is, um ... shall we say, unfortunately "funny" ...

It is not at all uncommon for police to skip the announcement as they go in to a drug bust, because they dont want to leave even a second for evidence to be destroyed.

And they know that this evidence is there because ... ?

Back to your bubble.
.

"investigators initially reported that they found no drugs in Maye's house but then mysteriously found some the next day;"

What I found interesting is this part. When a warrant is served, and especially in a scene where a shooting occurs, no speck of dust goes unsearched, no book is unleafed through, and no cabinet is left stocked.
Everything is searched, couches, chairs, vents, you name it, it's searched. To have contraband "mysteriously appear" the next day reeks of "throw down" evidence.
However, it won't be the first time, and it won't be the last time that a few shady officers choose to pull the magicians trick of making things "mysteriously appear" to make a case stick.

Obviously, Cory Maye should not be put to death and probably wouldn't be if he were white.

What I find disturbing about this discussion, though, is the idea that it is OK to kill someone who enters your house.

Kevin suggests that being "frightened that someone was breaking in to rob or assault" justifies killing.

I think the requirement for a self-defense defense should be higher than that. Something like a reasonable expectation of life-threatening assault. I don't think killing is justified by robbery.

Grand Moff Texan:

The 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says that "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The U.S. Supreme Court has badly twisted these plain words to validate many more searches than the plain meaning of the words would suggest, but presumably in order to get their warrant to include the Maye side of the duplex (assuming for now that the second report Kevin links to is true) someone had to give an "Oath or affirmation" to a judge indicating probable cause to believe there was a reason (illegal drug evidence) for a door busting search. Given what was (n't) found in the Maye residence I have to assume it is likely that the person who gave an "Oath or affirmation" about that side of the duplex was talking out their ass.

I remember a case a few years ago where a young Japanese tourist knocked at a house looking for help. He didn't understand the owner when he said to get off his property. The kid was unarmed, but that didn't stop the home-owner from shooting and killing him. It didn't stop the jury from acquitting the home-owner either.

Another misconception is the "no-knock" announcement.
"No-Knock" means that you got six combat loaded officers with a battering ram who line up on the door, ram open the door while announcing who they are.
No-knock is used in drug raids because of the possibility of evidence being disposed of during the course of a raid. Thus, with no-knock, officers are not required to "knock" on the door to announce their arrival, but they still have to announce who they are as they flood the room.
"[county] SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, ON THE FLOOR!"

My questions are why Maye's got a shot off, how come the police didn't open fire since they would've had guns drawn, did Mayes shoot wildly, ie. multiple shots, or was it an aimed shot. Also, were lights on, or off? Was a blood test done on Mayes for evidence of narcotics in his system?
There are a lot of questions that I would like answered.

If you click the link and read the story, it makes a point that the police officer had not drawn his gun before barging into this person's house.
Does anyone else think this is weird? I have watched enough COPS to know that they NEVER enter someone's house without an overwhelming show of force. (see Elian Gonzalez)

While they were busy dropping evidence to find the next day, do you suppose they also reholstered the deceased's weapon?

This whole thing stinks on ice.

But it turns out they did know Maye lived in a separate house, which makes it considerably more likely that they really did announce themselves. After all, why wouldn't they?

Organizations don't have knowledge. People do. The warrant shows that someone in the police department knew that there was a separate residence, but that doesn't necessarily mean that every officer at the scene knew.

So they got this guy on first degree murder? It seems to me awfully hard to prove pre-meditation in this case.

Sounds like this is one more reason to end the War on Some Drugs. Is there any other category of crimes where the police would have a good reason to do no-knock entries?

I've spent a good bit of my childhood in Mississippi and have learned that when the cops are white and the defendant/target/whatever is white to not assume the cops are telling the whole truth - and I am a white female. I know I am a pessemistic and/or cynical on this issue but I just don't trust the stories (one either side) in these situations. Too much history.

Looks like I got beat to this point, but I'll just elaborate a bit:

But it turns out they did know Maye lived in a separate house, which makes it considerably more likely that they really did announce themselves. After all, why wouldn't they? Apparently they did it next door.

The cop in charge of the search team might not have briefed the whole search team on everything that was going on; they might not have all paid attention during the briefing; they might have not been ordered to knock-and-announce at Maye's entrance if the leader of the search team didn't understand the law about that too well and assumed that knocking and announcing on one door of the same structure would be enough.

What's the big deal, Kevin? As you are an advocate for the death penalty why make exceptions? He was convicted and sentenced to death.

What? He may be innocent? Well, that is a minor detail compared to the blood thirst that needs to be satisfied, no?

Sorry, Kevin, you lost me this morning with your let-em-burn attitude. If you want a perfect system you will have to find it elsewhere. In the meantime, by being in favor of the death penalty you are risking situations just like this one.

Ignore Charlie/Cheney.

Plattsburgh NY a couple of yrs or so ago. Student becomes extremely drunk. Walks home but goes into the wrong house. Owner shoots and kills drunk student. Owner was not charged.

Won't it be nice when we have a judiciary chock full of strict constructionists that will literally interpret the Constitution:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

But first they'll have to take any reference to 'God' out of the Pledge and off the money.

Yeah, right...

What I find disturbing about this discussion, though, is the idea that it is OK to kill someone who enters your house.

How about, instead of 'someone' merely entering, armed men storming in during the middle of the night? See any difference?

Plattsburgh NY a couple of yrs or so ago. Student becomes extremely drunk. Walks home but goes into the wrong house. Owner shoots and kills drunk student. Owner was not charged.

Let me guess: Owner was not black.

The main, and possibly the only, reason for us to keep our facts straight is to emphasize that the "justice" system doesn't.

What I found most worrying about this was the revelation that there was a seperate warrent for his house. Far from excusing the police conduct, it really just raises other issues. Since when can your home be searched because you live next to someone suspecting of having drugs? Especially a search in the manner described. Maye's version of events is not only believable, but I cannot conceive of a different version that have warrented any guilty verdict. Much less the death penalty.

Ignore Charlie/Cheney.

(rattling her now-empty glass of ice cubes)

...Hack-HACK, wheeze, hack...

HEAR THAT SOUND? THAT'S THE "WHERE'S MY FUCKING SCOTCH" SOUND! IT MEANS YOU NEED TO FILL MY FUCKING GLASS WITH SCOTCH!

...wheeze...

The arguments against the death penalty, puffed up with phony statistics and false facts, have been pouring forth for decades now.

Some years ago anti-death penalty advocates pushed the insanity defense: Yes, the crazed murderers on death row had committed murder, but it wasn't their fault -- they're ill. When that defense failed to capture a large constituency of Americans, the death penalty fanatics turn to the old liberal standby: racis...

...cough-HACK-hack, wheeze...

NEW ICE! YOU THINK THAT I'M GOING TO USE THIS HALF-MELTED SHIT? GET ME SOME NEW ICE FOR MY FUCKING DRINK!

They claimed blacks were more likely to receive the death penalty than whites, which worked on a few judges for a little while. But then it turned out to be false. Compared to the percentage of murders committed by blacks and whites, more white murderers than black murderers are sentenced to death. (Also, by the way, white murderers are executed with greater alacrity than black murderers.)

If more blacks are executed than similarly situated white criminals, the system is racist, and the death penalty must be halted. If more whites are executed than similarly situated black criminals, the system is racist, and the death penalty must be halted. This makes it easy to keep up with the criminal defense lobby's new arguments since, no matter what the facts, the conclusion is always the sam...

...hack-cough, wheeze-cough, Hack-wheeze...

CHRIST, WHAT HAVE YOU DONE? YOU'VE RUINED MY FUCKING DRINK! YOU HAVE ONE MINUTE TO GET ME ANOTHER FUCKING SCOTCH BEFORE I SEND YOUR SORRY ASS BACK TO WHATEVER COW PASTURE TOWN VOMITED YOU OUT!

There is still not a single established case of an innocent person being executed in the past half-century.

...HACK, hack, hack...

I think the requirement for a self-defense defense should be higher than that. Something like a reasonable expectation of life-threatening assault. I don't think killing is justified by robbery.

Maye didn't go downstairs and discover a burglar making a sandwich, walk up and shoot him in the back of the head. He was asleep with a baby in the house when his door was bashed open and an intruder invaded his bedroom.

Big fucking difference.

Here's a question: Was the cop who was shot wearing a patrolman's uniform or an all black stealth outfit complete with a facemask?

There is a huge number of things we don't know about this case. Without all the information this case could go either way.

CHENEY: Do you think there is just a little difference between a drunk student and a duly-authorized law enforcement officer?

Do you think there is just a little difference between a drunk student and a duly-authorized law enforcement officer?

The guy who shot the drunk student didn't know it was just a drunk student, and the guy who shot the cop didn't know it was a cop.

The guy who shot the drunk student didn't know it was just a drunk student, and the guy who shot the cop didn't know it was a cop. Posted by: Scott on December 13, 2005 at 5:18 PM

Scott, Charlie knows that, he's just playing some twisted game in his mind when he asks questions he knows very well the answer to.

At least the police chief's son is dead, so some justice was done.

What's the big deal, Kevin? As you are an advocate for the death penalty why make exceptions?

Right. If you are a death penalty supporter you are, after all, obliged to believe everyone should be killed, no exceptions.

Look, I am as opposed to the death penalty as anyone, but false dichotomies do no one any good. Most arguments for the death penalty have circumstances to which they do apply and others to which they do not.

Several people seem to have missed the point that the cop who was killed was also the one who had all the information underlying the warrant. He was the one who alleged separate residences, with one occupant "unknown"; he was the one who assessed the credibility of the anonymous informant. Why he chose to be first through the door, unarmed, on a raid supposedly justified by the dangerousness of the occupants is, well, unknowable.

Get our fact straight? You mean like this?

"If police thought Maye's door was just a side door to his neighbor's house, it's reasonable to suppose they might not have announced themselves. After all, why anounce yourself twice to the same residence? But it turns out they did know Maye lived in a separate house, which makes it considerably more likely that they really did announce themselves."

This is all speculation. So basically, you read about this case, your first instinct is to try to come up with mitigating evidence in favor of the police, you write the above speculation, then call it "fact," and admonish the rest of us to "keep our facts straight."

What's more interesting than your speculation--I'm sorry, "facts"--is that it's your first instinct, pretty much always, to try to find some way to concede the case of the other side, be it, in the case, the prosecution, but usually, just republican douchebags. But, because you fancy yourself some kind of progressive, or at least non-republican, you come down in the end on the progressive side, but only have you've mightily patted yourself on the back for "seing both sides" and being the guy who's not "shrill and partisan" and chided the rest of us for not straining as hard as you to "see the other side." And in the end, it's all about you, the "conscience" of the left. But the questioon is, doesn't this ever get tiring? For you, I mean. Clearly for us, it does. But don't you ever just get sick of doing this? You should try actually believing about something. You'll feel bette about yourself.

And, oh yeah, thanks for filling us in the "facts" about Maye.

also: to the extent that there were any facts, they depend on the assumption that police don't lie about situations like this. Do you know any criminal defense lawyers? Have you ever spoken to one?

No one returned fire when Maye shot the officer? I don't know if the police showed incredible self control or total incompetence.

"I think the requirement for a self-defense defense should be higher than that. Something like a reasonable expectation of life-threatening assault. I don't think killing is justified by robbery."

Please! What if the person barging in was an undercover cop who happened to be black and the homeowner was white? Do you think we would be having this discussion?

Now, if the cop had been a young Black woman and the man who did the shooting had been the mayor's son, then maybe the story would have been that the cop, a newbie, accidentally shot herself and the mayor's son was as stunned as anyone and invited everyone out for drinks at the countryclub.

Somehow this story gets told over and over in various versions and the rich & powerful White men always seem to come out smelling like roses. I wonder why?

From "Here's to the State of Mississippi" by Phil Ochs, 1964:

Here's to the cops of Mississippi
They're chewing their tobacco as they lock the prison door
Their bellies bounce inside them as they knock you to the floor
No they don't like taking prisoners in their private little war
Behind their broken badges there are murderers and more
Oh, here's to the land you've torn out the heart of
Mississippi find yourself another country to be part of

And, here's to the judges of Mississippi
Who wear the robe of honor as they crawl into the court
They're guarding all the bastions with their phony legal fort
Oh, justice is a stranger when the prisoners report
When the black man stands accused the trial is always short
Oh, here's to the land you've torn out the heart of
Mississippi find yourself another country to be part of

I guess things haven't changed much.

The full lyrics are here:

http://www.cowboylyrics.com/lyrics/ochs-phil/heres-to-the-state-of-mississippi-11445.html

NY1: But the questioon is, doesn't this ever get tiring? For you, I mean. Clearly for us, it does. But don't you ever just get sick of doing this? You should try actually believing about something.

He's immune because it is his nature to conform to the system. His complaints have only to do with demands he believes are outside those which comprised the system when he was first indoctrinated into it. Other than that, Kevin plays along. If he didn't, you wouldn't be reading his words here because he would be shut out. He may be a Democrat, but in the end, he is far less passionately democratic than he is devotedly capitalistic -- a characteristic which makes his views much more in line with the Republicans for whom he espouses opposition than they conflict with them.

The words of the Fourth Amendment have been rendered as meaningless as the words of the Fifth or First. I've yet to hear of any probable cause which would lead to a legitimate warrant being issued for Maye's home, and if there was no legitimate basis for a search of Maye's home, Maye cannot be faulted for defending with deadly force when someone kicks in the door in the middle of the night.

Frankly, the entire warrant process has become so polluted with falshoods by law enforcement, either with the use of phantom anonymous tips, to flat-out lies in the warrant application, that it has thoroughly corrupted the criminal justice system, and political partisans tend to stand by and applaud or shrug their shoulders, as long as somebody they don't like is being abused.

To take a rather famous case, when the Reno Justice Department decided to stop the legal wrangling over Elian Gonzalez once and for all, Federal agents flat out lied in their warrant application to gain access to the Gonzalez family home, deliberately shopped it to a compliant magistrate after the judge who was hearing the case was gone for Easter weekend (because he likely would have laughed the warrant application out of court), obtained their warrant through false statements, kicked in the door, grabbed the kid, and sent him out of the country, rendering further legal proceedings moot.

"Liberals" (I use the term facetiously) applauded this use of state power because Clinton was their boy. No doubt many "conservatives" objected simply because they objected to everything Clinton did. The outrage, however, was that the immensely powerful Federal government could obtain a warrant through blatant perjury, and thus prevail in a legal conflict via the raw use of violent force. It goes on every day.

WHAT WAS THE CONCLUSION TO THIS CASE WITH A SOLID CONFESSION.
WHO KILLED COCK ROBIN ?
" I SAID THE SPARROW , WITH MY BOW AND ARROW "
THE BLUE JAY

Kevin is virtually immune to this sort of shaming, especially since he is mostly defended in his philosophies by a louder crowd than you or I can muster.

Blah di blah blah. You don't like this blog, start your own. Jerk.

"I think the requirement for a self-defense defense should be higher than that. Something like a reasonable expectation of life-threatening assault. I don't think killing is justified by robbery."

I agree, but over and over in the South and West, juries have shown themselves willing to exonerate people who shoot others on the flimsiest of "self-defense" excuses. There was the guy in Texas who shot and killed an Asian exchange student who made the mistake of walking up and ringing his doorbell - the kid was deemed to have been trespassing, or something, and they called it self-defense. Then there was Lady Driver A, stopped in traffic in I believe Texas as well, who got into a little tiff with Lady Driver B over who cut who off, and, when the Lady B got out of her car and marched up to Lady A's window, Lady A shot her in the face. That was ruled self-defense.

Basically, we Americans are all convinced other people are about to kill us; we buy handguns to "protect" ourselves; and then we end up killing the next perfectly innocent person who makes us nervous. These handgun deaths don't show up in the "handgun murders" stats, because they're not considered murders - just the regrettable accidents which are unavoidable in a culture that has totally flipped its freaking lid.

BROOKSFOE: These handgun deaths don't show up in the "handgun murders" stats, because they're not considered murders - just the regrettable accidents which are unavoidable in a culture that has totally flipped its freaking lid.

Are you threatening to shoot me, jayarbee? That's interesting.

In my book, sneering insultingly at the person who creates and hosts the forum you're posting in, and dismissing his/her capacity to reason, in the third person, so it's clear you're not even actually arguing with them, is obnoxious. You disagree?

I'm not sure if the knee jerk assumption is that a southern cop must be scum is any better than the assumption that an unemployed black guy is a criminal.

If the warrant is an issue, lobby for the judge who granted it to lose his job.

I'd say whether this guy hangs or not is based on whether the jury believed he didn't know it was a cop. Whic I presume the trial examined.

I'd say whether this guy hangs or not is based on whether the jury believed he didn't know it was a cop.

What are the chances that he knowingly shot a cop, with his wife and daughter lying next to him, when he hadn't committed a crime? On the other hand, if you lived next door to a drug dealer, and your door blew open in the middle of the night, and a dark figure came charging in, wouldn't that be pretty much the situation you envisioned when you bought a gun to protect yourself (because you lived next door to a drug dealer)?

BROOKSFOE: Are you threatening to shoot me, jayarbee? That's interesting.In my book, sneering insultingly at the person who creates and hosts the forum you're posting in, and dismissing his/her capacity to reason, in the third person, so it's clear you're not even actually arguing with them, is obnoxious. You disagree?

Yes, but not strongly enough to shoot you. But that's mostly because I can make no sense of what you're saying. Will say that I also feel free to criticize my boss "in the third person" (?) and sneeringly if it seems appropriate. I guess that my workplace is his forum, by proxy at least. At any rate, you go ahead and sneer at those you think deserve it, and I'll do the same.

What are the chances that he knowingly shot a cop, with his wife and daughter lying next to him, when he hadn't committed a crime? On the other hand

Posted by: brooksfoe on December 13, 2005 at 10:22 PM | PERMALINK

Dunno.

Jury would look at how loud the notice was. How much commotion was in the area. Look at how well lit the back area was - and whether the guy coming in had his gun out and was wearing a uniform...

I wan't in the trial- the jury was.

The words of the Fourth Amendment have been rendered as meaningless as the words of the Fifth or First. I've yet to hear of any probable cause which would lead to a legitimate warrant being issued for Maye's home, and if there was no legitimate basis for a search of Maye's home, Maye cannot be faulted for defending with deadly force when someone kicks in the door in the middle of the night.

The validity of the probable cause really has no bearing on whether or not there is a legitimate self-defense claim; whether or not the police in fact had probable cause is mostly irrelevant to whether Maye reasonably believed that they were not the police executing a warrant but violent intruders.

Even if they had no cause, Maye's recourse if the police intrude -- if he believes that is who they are -- without a valid warrant is through the courts, not through self-help violence.

So where is this case in the appeals process? I see from the timeline that the raid took place in 2001. Has a date been set for the appeal?

If 10 cops bust down my door, I doubt that I am going to shoot one of them. That would be virtual suicide. If for no other reason than that a message that it is ok to shoot cops who break down your door cant be sent, the defendant cant be acquitted, but there is no way this should be a death penalty case. If the guy had decided to have a shoot out with a bunch of cops, why did he stop shooting while he was still breathing? Rational intent has to be proven since the cops surprised and provoked the defendant and there can be no rational motive for shooting in that circumstance.

Yes, cmdicely, but a person who has no reason to believe that he was suspected of having committed a crime, for the basic reason that he knows that he has not, in fact, commmitted a crime, would have little reason to think that it was the police kicking his door in.

Besides we've only heard from one viewpoint - the defendants.

We've got 10 other cops, the other guy who got arrested and the daughter...not to mention those fancy police noice and video recorders in their cars they use to take clips for TV shows. I presume in various testimonies and evidence there were statements that reflect on whether or not Maye could reasonably be unaware the person he was shooting was a cop.

Maybe the jury felt he had time to call out first, time to recognise a police uniform or time to realise the target was unarmed.

Y'know - randomly shooting someone for being on your property without calling a warning first is pretty bad behaviour. If a white guy did that to a black trespasser late at night - I expect the 'self-defence' argument to be tested fairly severely before the white guy gets off.

I am stunned by the number of people here who believe this father would conciously choose to shoot a police officer in the middle of the night, knowing he was a police officer. You must really believe black people just like to do senseless things. And this is the Demcratic leaning site!!

McAristotle:
If a stranger busts into someone's home and then bedroom in the middle of the night and gets shot, the shooter more than 9 times out of ten wont be charged with anything, let alone a crime requiring the defense of self-defense.

If the man that was killed hadn't been a police officer this case would never have gotten anywhere near trial. However much I disagree with it, the right to defend the inner safety of the home is the primary justification and legitimizer for hand gun ownership in this country.

There are difficult self-defense cases, but the right to defend oneself and family in ones home against stranger invasion isn't one of them.

Look. If I don't believe the father shot a police officer in the middle of the night.

I have to believe a bunch of jurors (who were not apparently all-white) made a racist decision. And a whole bunch of cops conspired to give evidence that appropriate warning was given when it wasn't given....

Go through the Agitator site and look for the prosecutors comments - he doesn't look upset on the verdict - and he comments that the bottom line is that the jury didn't believe the person didn't know he was shooting a cop.

If a stranger busts into someone's home and then bedroom in the middle of the night and gets shot, the shooter more than 9 times out of ten wont be charged with anything, let alone a crime requiring the defense of self-defense.

Posted by: ChetBob on December 14, 2005 at 2:34 AM | PERMALINK

Without warning? Without a visible weapon to make you feel in danger enough to fire without warning?

Strange country.

Look - has anyone checked if the other cops supported the defendents claim that no warning was given? If they didn't, you'd have to allege conspiracy to argue no warning was given. Plus has anyone confirmed the jury did not have minorities in it? If it did, racism isn't a fair explanation for the jury decision.

McAristotle:
Wake up. Police officers go to great lengths to get their stories strait before they even write a police report. (If interviews are done with officers separated from each other the consistancy often break down) This police report coordination system tends to falter only in situations like mass arrests at a protest where there is just too much information to manage cohesively.

McAristotle:
Wake up. Police officers go to great lengths to get their stories strait before they even write a police report.

Posted by: ChetBob on December 14, 2005 at 3:03 AM | PERMALINK

Well. That's a conspiracy isn't it?

The jury doesn't believe a police conspiracy is more plausible than some idiot trying to kill a cop out of anti-authority bias.

Are you sure it was an all-white police force?
Are you sure the father didn't have a past history other than a record - that showed a motive for trying to kill a cop?

The guy has a couple more appeals...good luck to him.

But the anti-police bias on these comments is freaky.

http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?tl=1&display=rednews/2004/12/29/build/nation/38-hunters-shot.inc

By the way, can I ask why no one believed the Hmong guy who says the white guys threatened him?
A racist conspiracy by two white survivors is more believable then 10 cops, isn't it?

Did he get a all-Hmong jury?

P.S.
McAristotle:
Cases like this put jurors in a bind. Once the police officer testifies to the clear announcement, probably with some additional information like "could have heard it on the other side of the house, let alone down the hall" or "no way a person could have slept through it" and has this testimony coroberated by a second officer, the jury feels it has to beleive two officers are lying in order to believe the defendant didn't hear it was the police "visiting". Jurors dont like to believe police lie. Then there is the defendant. Absent some third party evidence to the contrary, a jury in most communities (and judges) will always presume the defendant has more motive to lie than a police officer, let alone two. The officer is presumed more credible before anyone has opened their mouth. And never forget, police officers recieve special training on testifying at trial. In Mississipi and most communities, I'm guessing a good defense attorney would try to avoid the strategy of saying the police lied (absent some evidence that cant be explained away) and instead push what it looked and sounded like to the self-defense defendant. I have no idea what happened at trial in this case.

I find this a compelling self-defense case given the confusion of being woken in the middle of the night, even with a police announcement. I am a sound sleeper and a groggy waker, and hard of hearing. I wouldn't register anything yelled
at the other end of the house for quite sometime, even after I awoke.

Do you think there is just a little difference between a drunk student and a duly-authorized law enforcement officer?

Well, one was armed, attempting to bodily assault the homeowner - and the other was neither armed nor attempting bodily contact.

I'll let you figure out which was which.

Well, ChetBob do you believe the police were lying and the jury neglected to even consider this fairly?

'cos that the other side of believing this guy when he said he heard no warning...

-You could at least wait for the agitator to confirm all white jury and all white cops before the 'Southern racism' motive is so easily accepted.

Regards
McA

Well, one was armed, attempting to bodily assault the homeowner

Posted by: Crissa on December 14, 2005 at 3:34 AM | PERMALINK

Anyone sure the cop was armed? If the gun was holstered - that would be in the trial transcript.
Anyone read it before they are so sure ten Southern cops conspired?

So who do you call to protect you from these criminals? There's no one.

"That's what the second amendment is for. If a cop commits a crime that threatens me and/or my family, I will kill him if that's what it takes to stop him.

It is beneath the dignity of an American to submit to a criminal just because he's wearing a badge.
.
Posted by: Grand Moff Texan on December 13, 2005 at 1:38 PM"

AAAAMen GMT, Amen. When a cop breaks the law, in my humble opinion, he/she ceases to be a police officer and becomes a criminal with a badge. Unfortunately this won't hold up in court because the courts treat cops as if they're boy scouts with guns and can do no wrong or tell no lies.
I support the "Cameras on Cops" thing personnally and think that any case where the camera wasn't operating for ANY reason should be thrown out.
Just my two cents.

P.S. Who says a criminal can't yell POLICE!! as he's kickin your door in?

Even if we interpret the facts in the worst possible way for the accused - I still don't see how this is a death penalty case. Surely this is not premeditated first degree murder, but something less (second degree murder, first degree manslaughter, etc.).

Am I missing something?

But the anti-police bias on these comments is freaky.

Actually, more of a pro-police bias on your part, McAristotle. Your apparent stunned disbelief that anyone could possibly think police officers or prosecutors would actually lie or distort evidence ("but.. but.. they're the police!") strikes me as naive. Even in this case there is suspicion that drugs were planted after the fact in Maye's home to make the police action more justifiable.

Having read about numerous instances of police and prosecutorial misconduct here in Illinois that has led to innocent people being put on Death Row, I'm no longer willing to delude myself about the inner workings of the law-enforcement sausage factory. And this case has that familiar rancid smell.

Even if we interpret the facts in the worst possible way for the accused - I still don't see how this is a death penalty case. Surely this is not premeditated first degree murder, but something less (second degree murder, first degree manslaughter, etc.).

Am I missing something?

The worst possible interpretation is that Maye deliberately and with the requisite (fairly minimal) consideration to qualify as "premeditation" under the law shot and killed a police officer, which is first-degree murder with special circumstances almost anywhere the death penalty is retained.

That this is, from most accounts I've seen, a highly improbable interpretation of the evidence doesn't change that that is a viable one. (OTOH, it does raise the question of whether a criminal conviction was appropriate.)

I think you are probably misguided as to what is required to establish "premeditation" for murder -- its a lot lower bar than it sounds (or at least, than I thought of it before actually beginning the study of law.)

Yes, cmdicely, but a person who has no reason to believe that he was suspected of having committed a crime, for the basic reason that he knows that he has not, in fact, commmitted a crime, would have little reason to think that it was the police kicking his door in.

Unless, of course, they properly announced their entrance. Of course, he could still believe that they were criminals planning on doing him harm, but absent something more indicating criminality rather than law enforcement in the entry than his subjective doubt that he would be suspected of a crime because of his belief that he hadn't committed one, its unlikely that any jury is going to find such belief reasonable, a necessity for establishing the defense of self-defense.

I'm not saying Maye is in fact guilty -- the method of execution of the warrant -- even granting, arguendo, that there was an announcement -- makes it quite likely that Maye was not aware of the announcement and that a valid claim of self-defense could be made. But Maye's factual innocence of any prior crime, or his belief in (or the fact of) any defect in the warrant is immaterial to that.

Y'know - randomly shooting someone for being on your property without calling a warning first is pretty bad behaviour.

"Randomly", sure. But in the cases where self-defense is legally acceptable as an excuse for using deadly force in the first place, warning is generally impractical.

If a white guy did that to a black trespasser late at night - I expect the 'self-defence' argument to be tested fairly severely before the white guy gets off.

Which, I suppose, is understandable -- if you are a Malaysian with little understanding of the way things tend to work in the United States.

Without warning? Without a visible weapon to make you feel in danger enough to fire without warning?

Strange country.

Yeah, McA, we get that you don't understand the first thing about the United States.

But, yes, reasonable fear of imminent wrongfully-inflicted death or serious bodily injury neither requires a visible weapon (as such injuries can be wrongfully inflicted without a weapon) nor obligates the person in reasonable fear to issue a warning before using deadly force in self-defense.

Anyone sure the cop was armed? If the gun was holstered - that would be in the trial transcript.

Wait -- a person with a gun in a holster is now considered "unarmed"?

I dunno, cmdicely. I think a talented defense attorney with a some theatrical skill could credibly establish the notion that being wakened out of a dead sleep, in the dead of night, does not lend itself to clearly grasping what someone is shouting as they burst through a door. Toss in the fact that the defendent would have no reason to think that the police would be serving a warrant (which is point; the fact that the warrant is baseless merely reinforces it), and a well prepared jury could easily come to the conclusion that somebody confronted with Maye's situation could resonably conclude they were acting in self-defense.

That's the rub, isn't it? Maye likely did not benefit from a well-argued defense. Yet another thing I'd rather spend public money on, as opposed to a War on Drugs; ensuring that defendent's received adequate legal counsel. Yeah, that'll really be a winning political platform!

In some parts of the US it has become fairly common for criminal home invaders dressed as police to force their way into houses late at night while shouting police. So, even if someone is kicking down your door at 2 AM shouting police it is certainly no assurance that the people on the other side of the door really are police. With that information in mind it would seem a reasonable person might well open fire first and ask questions later.

he outrage, however, was that the immensely powerful Federal government could obtain a warrant through blatant perjury

Why is it that extremist/partyist blabbermouths always say things like this, but never back them up?

And why is it that Repubs actually have ranking people who say these things, like the current administration, and never get called on them?

Does anyone have any information other than that from Radley. I googled the case, but really can find only pro-Maye information other than the prosecutor comments on the Agitator. This is a bit odd, unless of course the defense is completely accurate in its description of the facts of this case. At first glance, it appears to be a travesty of justice.

Crissa - in fact, the law enforcement officers are NOT guilty of "assault" whereas the drunk student may indeed be - I'm sure you can do better than that. As has been pointed out above, this jury simply did not believe Mr. Maye did not know they were police - that is at least theoretically possible, correct?

Yes, what a country we live in where stumbling around incoherently is assault, but forcing your way through a door, yelling and tackling aren't - because you have a badge.

It's hard to be proud to be an American in a country with secret laws, cops immune to wrongdoing, and an all-white jury letting the white guy off for killing an unarmed man wandering around drunkenly and puts the black man to death for shooting the cop who broke into his house.

Where's the intent to kill, I ask? The policeman suffered a single shot. Had he been wearing a simple vest, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Had he used his weapon he wouldn't even be on trial.

How is this at all fair?

Several of my family members are or were police officers, and my grandfather barely survived being shot by a suspect (his partner didn't, leaving a widow and 7 kids). So I'm pretty sympathetic in general to the job the police have to do and the risks they face.

But as someone who's previously lived in a moderately sketchy neighborhood with frequent loud noises and shouts at night, in L.A., I'm sorry, but it really doesn't matter if the police yelled 'Police!' a second before barging in. Even if you wake up to a shout, you may not know what it is if you were asleep. And from Maye's point of view, he has no reason to expect cops are going to be barging in; a drug dealer might, but the average person would assume quite reasonably that someone was breaking in.

One great comment I read somewhere (can't remember, might have been a Volokh poster) was that late night no-knock raids quite deliberately aim to create disorientation and confusion in the inhabitants. So, if that's the whole point, how can anyone expect an innocent person to react in a completely calm, rational manner? I don't care how loudly the police announced themselves, it sounds like Maye reacted quite rationally, though tragically. When people have broken into your home, and you retreat to your bedroom with your child, and people chase you in, you have a right to defend yourself. A lot of blame also lies in the hands of the judge who authorized a warrant on what sounds like extremely weak evidence as well.

Another casualty of the war on drugs. How many people have overdosed on marijuana again? And how many debacles like this have cost lives? Maye shouldn't spend a day longer in prison.

Yeah, really, I'm not sure I would -believe- a shout of "police" when someone is breaking into my house. I mean, if someone wanted to break in and kill me, he's just as able to yell that as actual policemen are. It's not like they're doing anything that isn't available to bad guys too.

I'm real wary of the "defending my house" defense, because spouses and kids late from a date can get shot that way. But there's no doubt that in many states, that's considered a legitimate defense. I knew a man (white, and wealthy) who in very similar circumstances killed a cop, and he got only a couple years. Now it could be that he had better representation, but the circumstances were remarkably similar.

And so it's really weird that someone would get the death penalty for doing that.

After all, cops and DEA agents have often broken into the wrong house, and more than once have "accidentally" shot the wrong person, and so it's not a crazy idea that you might be in danger for your life-- even if they really are police. But I suspect one of the risks of this very high-risk operatin is that a man wakened out of a dead sleep is not always going to be able to make sense of what's happening. And whether he's a drug dealer, or just lives next door to one, well, he could very well keep a gun handy.

I think the dispute is that the police and the officers who were there say it wasn't a 'no knock' raid.

Does the trial transcript, show the gun was loaded by his bedside, or does it show he was awake enough to pull it out of a hiding place and load the gun..?

On the whole 'hunting season on cops' thing you guys believe..if there is no warning a cop can give that would render his entry somewhat safe..I think you could get a lot of cops just refusing to do any searches.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Maye#Discrepancies_in_police_and_court_records

By the way- 2 of the jurors were african american.
The cops gun was holstered. And according to wikipedia - he was in the front sleeping on a chair woke up and went back to a cupboard to get a gun. Plus 4 of the cops say they made an announcement into the front door.