Someone on another forum posted this and I am so grateful they did! This is an absolute travesty of the worst kind! I urge you all to tell everyone about this. Have them write letters to the Governor! Have them sign petitions (link provided at the end of the article.) Pray, please pray that something can be done to free this man!
Details of the Case
Cory Maye shot and killed a police officer when that officer burst into his home on December 26, 2001. Cory lived in one side of a duplex. On the other side was a certain Mr. Jamie Smith. In a surprise midnight raid, the officers stormed Smith's side. A local police officer, Ron Jones, went around to break in the other side of the building, into the other unit of the duplex. And on that side lived Cory Jermaine Maye.
Maye was awakened from sleep by the commotion at the door, went into the bedroom and fired at an intruder. This was after the intruder had broken down the back door and entered the living room, and was coming toward the bedroom. The officer was hit by one .380 caliber bullet in the abdomen. He staggered back out of the apartment and died some hours later.
Search warrants had been procured by the police for the side containing Smith, naming him by name. For the side containing Maye the search warrant just said "unknown occupants". Police statements indicate that Maye and was not the target of the raid. Maye claimed he fired in self defense at intruders fearing for himself and his 18 month old daughter. The man he killed, Officer Ron Jones, was the son of the police chief of Prentiss, Mississippi.
Maye was convicted in 2004 by a jury comprised of ten whites and two blacks. He was sentenced to death by lethal injection.
Please read this and write the Governor and let him know that this man should be saved ...
I don't know what else to say, but ... Help us save him.
Sometime in late 2001, Officer Ron Jones collected a tip from an anonymous informant that Jamie Smith, who lived opposite Maye in a duplex, was selling drugs out of his home. Jones passed the tip to the Pearl River Basin Narcotics Task Force, a regional police agency in charge of carrying out drug raids in four surrounding counties. The task force asked Jones if he'd like to come along on the raid they'd be conducting as the result of his tip. He obliged.
On the night of December 26, the task force donned paramilitary gear, and conducted a drug raid on Smith's house. Unfortunately, they hadn't done their homework. The team didn't realize that the house was a duplex, and that Maye -- who had no relationship with Smith,-- rented out the other side with his girlfirend and 1-year-old daughter.
As the raid on Smith commenced, some officers - including Jones -- went around to what they thought was a side door to Smith's residence, looking for a larger stash of drugs. (Note added on 12/12: This is Maye's first attorney's account of the raid. Police did have a warrant to both residences, though Maye wasn't named in either.) The door was actually a door to Maye's home. Maye was home alone with his young daughter, and asleep, when one member of the SWAT team broke down the outside door. Jones, who hadn't drawn his gun charged in, and made his way to Maye's bedroom. Police did not announce themselves. (Note added on 12/09/05: Police said at trial that they did announce themselves before entering Maye's apartment -- Maye and his attorney say otherwise. I'm inclined to believe Maye, for reasons outlined in this post. However, even if they did, announcing seconds before bursting in just before midnight, isn't much better than not announcing at all. An innocent person on the other end of the raid, particularly if still asleep, has every reason to fear for his life.). Maye, fearing for his life and the safety of his daughter, fired at Jones, hitting him in the abdomen, just below his bulletproof vest. Jones died a short time later.
Maye had no criminal record, and wasn't the target of the search warrant. Police initially concluded they had found no drugs in Maye's side of the duplex. Then, mysteriously, police later announced they'd found "traces" of marijuana. I talked to the attorney who represented Maye at trial. She said that to her knowledge, police had found one smoked marijuana cigarette in Maye's apartment. Regardless, since Maye wasn't the subject of the search, whether or not he had misdemeanor amounts of drugs in his possession isn't really relevant. What's relevant is whether or not he reasonably believed his life was in danger. Seems pretty clear to me that that would be a reasonable assumption.
It apparently wasn't so clear to Mississippi's criminal justice system. In January of last year, Maye was convicted of capital murder for the shooting of Officer Jones. He was sentenced to death by lethal injection.
That is so messed up. I believe anyone would have acted in the same way as Maye and shot an intruder in self defense.
First, the dead cop was inexperienced for conducting a raid. Then immediately after the raid, police first said they found no drugs in Maye's apartment and days later, they say they found a small bag of "allegedly marijuana,", is enough to show they are lying and were wrong. How on earth could they conduct a raid and then be stupid enough to forget that they found marijuana. Doesn't make sense!
With a system that crooked, I seriously doubt a petition will help. I hope he can be saved.
Posts: 6723 | Location: Land of Lincoln, USA | Registered: 07-04-02
# Whether or not the narcotics task force sufficiently announced themselves and gave Maye time to peacefully answer the door before forcing entry.
# Where the drugs in Maye's apartment came from.
# Why the times listed on the evidence sheets for both Maye and Smith's apartments were repeatedly scribbled out. Why Maye's sheet lists no exact time the evidence was collected. Why the evidence in Smith's apartment was collected on the 26th, immediately after the raid, while the evidence in Maye's was apparently collected at 5:20am the next day (though again, that time was the last of three times entered, the first two being scribbled out to the point of being illegible).
# The legitimacy of the warrant for Maye's residence. It appears to have been issued solely on the word of a confidential informant, who says he spotted marijuana in the apartment. If the warrant was illegitimate, police should never have broken down Maye's door. If it was legitimate, they'd still have to have clearly announced themselves, and given Maye time to answer the door, for him to be guilty of capital murder.
# According to Maye's first attorney, two jurors told her after trial that Maye was convicted because (1) jurors resented Maye's attorney for suggesting in her closing argument that God would remember whether or not they'd shown Maye mercy when it came time for their judgment day, and (2) the didn't like Maye's upbringing -- they found him to be spoiled and disrespectful. Source: The Agitator -------- Wikipedia's Entry on the Incident -------- IF A COP BREAKS INTO YOUR HOUSE UNNANOUNCED, and you shoot him thinking he's a burglar, it's self-defense. But Radley Balko reports on a case of a wrong-house no-knock raid that has led to what sounds like a total miscarriage of justice: - Instapundit.com (Instapundit is apparently a right wing blog) -------- More at The Rational Review
According to The Rational Reviews home page, it is "The premier libertarian web journal -- New politics for a new century." -------- I Googled maye + mississippi + raid and got this.
Posts: 17549 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Further to the above I will say this, on reflection: firstly, the law of self -defence in the US appears to be the same as in Britain and France viz. that a person may use reasonable force in his own protection against a real or genuinely believed threat. The measure of what is reasonable is that the force must be proportionate to the threat. I can but assume that the jury was properly directed on the law and decided, on the facts as they found them to be, that this man acted unreasonably and so his plea failed.
Secondly: happily, as yet, such a killing is unlikely in Britain . Whilst it is always going to be possible for a professional criminal, with contacts to a gangland armourer, to get possession of a firearm for use in one specific crime, and we do have cases of criminals getting and keeping firearms too, the chances of any normal citizen having ready access to any firearm at all in their home are extremely low and almost inconceivable in the case of a handgun. It follows from that that an English jury would be very eager to convict.Not only has this man got a (hand)gun, so they deduce he is hardened gangster of the most violent and professional type, but he has shot a policeman with it.(They'd ignore the absence of previous convictions and assume he'd just been lucky in the past) When we had the death penalty it only applied to certain types of murder. One was shooting someone. Another was killing a policeman. So this man would have been hanged twice,if only it could have been done.
It does appear that from the instructions the jury were given that mitigating circumstances were totally discounted.
There are a few of us doing research on this and has of yet to come across anything pointing to the fact it is anything but what has been stated. It's just wrong!
I do urge everyone to sign the Petition. I don't know for sure if it will help, but it can't hurt. I'm also going to write to the governor. I am trying to find out if anyone can attend any of these court proceedings and perhaps drive over to Mississippi and check it out. It's not that far from Louisiana.
I know we can't cure all the ills of the world in one fell sweep, but I think maybe this is a good place to start.
The thing that really bothers me is if he is executed, it appears none of us have the right to defend our family, homes, or property without fear of death. It's just not right.
The thing that really bothers me is if he is executed, it appears none of us have the right to defend our family, homes, or property without fear of death. It's just not right.
Bother no more. Cases like this one always give rise to complaints that the law has gone mad and we'll all be jailed for hurting some poor little gangster or psycopath (or petty burglar, come to that). You have a perfect right to defend your property but , somehow, the common law never got around to the idea that there was a hunting season for burglars.
A genuine mistake is as good as fact of course. It doesn't matter if I mistake an innocent man for an intending attacker: my mistaken view is treated as true.
Juries apply a degree of common sense(Perhaps, sadly, this one didn't ). They are not going to convict someone simply because the accused killed someone when, it turns out, there was no need to kill. You can't expect someone in fear to act with the sang froid of a war hero or a James Bond nor can you expect someone to weigh to a nicety, in the agony of the moment, the degree of force needed. That's fine in the cold light of a courtroom but not in some dark house at night Even if they convict they should still be able to find some mitigation though there's always the risk that, once self-defence has gone, a jury will ignore all the evidence on that point.
On your main point: it all depends,t common law, whether or not you are in fear of death at the time,either for yourself or anyone else present, when you pull the trigger. Your law doesn't have the death penalty for burglary. If so, you can't yourself summarily execute a burglar just for being a burglar. It's even a crime to kill a man who is on his way to his own legal execution, so deliberately killing one whose only crime, or criminal intent, is to steal is definitely not recommmended . Though,as I say, we expect juries to take an understanding and realistic view.
Mississippi has a rather more robust law than most, concerning defence, but this man could not even win under that, sadly.
A lawyer reviewed the documents in this case. The lawyer posts on a different forum. I sure hope this is ok but this is what was posted. I found it very informative and it sure gives me hope that Cory can, at the very least, receive a new trial.
This is an interesting case involving REVERSIBLE ERROR.
I browsed the legal documents on the website, but I couldn't find the jury instructions. The actual reading of the jury instructions was omitted from the transcript, but I am able to discern the essense of the instructions from the recorded discussions between the prosecuting attorney, the defense attorney, and the court, and from the closing arguments.
From the prosecuting attorney's closing argument, it is clear that Maye was charged with "capital murder." The jury was instructed on the lesser included offenses of "murder" and "manslaughter." However, since the jury convicted on the "capital murder" charge resulting in the death penalty, that's the charge we must analyze.
In his closing argument, the prosecuting attorney set forth the government's burden of proof as to the elements of the offense (paraphrased) as follows:
The state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant:
That the Defendant did willfully and unlawfully kill and murder Jones, a human being, without authority of law, while Jones was acting in his official capacity as a law enforcement officer, to wit: serving a search warrant as a police officer, and that the Defendant knew that the person he killed was a police officer, then the Defendant is guilty of capital murder.
When one parses the elements of the offense to discover the requisite mental state, conduct, and attendant circircumstances, etc., the essential element "without authority of law" stands out. That means the offense must be committed without legal justification or EXCUSE.
Justification or excuse are legal defenses.
Accordingly, in the State of Mississippi, the state has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt the NONEXISTENCE of a defense.
This case was erroneously framed and tried as a "justification" case. The jury was erroneously instructed that the state has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not justified in using deadly force in self-defense. In his closing statement, the prosecuting attorney argued (paraphrased):
If the Defendant did shoot and kill Jones, but it was in necessary self-defense, then he is not guilty. To be JUSTIFIABLE on the ground of self-defense, the danger to the Defendant must be either ACTUAL (a present and urgent danger) or the Defendant must have reasonable grounds to believe the victim (Jones) intended to kill the defendant or cause him great bodily harm. If there is no actual, urgent, and present danger, there is no self defense.
HOWEVER, this was NOT a justification/self-defense case. This justification defense would apply, for instance, if someone like TOOKIE WILLIAMS, a dangerous gang member had awoke Maye from a deep sleep at night by the sound of the door being kicked in. Under those circumstances, Maye would not only have a reasonable belief that he and his daughter were the victims of an unlawful home invasion, but his belief would be GENUINE. Under those hypothetical circumstances, no one could reasonably dispute the fact that Maye was confronted with an actual, urgent, and present danger and that he instantaneously reacted out of fear to defend himself and his daughter.
BUT, the circumstances of Maye's case were different. Maye might have reasonably believed that he and his daughter were the victims of a home invasion, but his belief was MISTAKEN. However, this case was tried as a justification (self-defense) case by both the prosecution and the defense. The jury was instructed that this was a justification (self-defense) case when it was NOT a justification (self-defense) case. This was an EXCUSE case. The jury never knew that Maye's MISTAKEN belief EXCUSED (not justified) his conduct and that he could not be held criminally liable for his MISTAKEN belief----BECAUSE, if the circumstances had been as he reasonably believed (from a subjective standard when one is standing in HIS shoes at the time with only seconds to react after hearing his door being kicked) he would have been justified. No one can dispute if Maye had shot someone like TOOKIE WILLIAMS rather than Officer Jones that Maye would have been justified.
But, again, the jury never got to hear that a subjectively reasonable (standing in the shoes of the defendant), but MISTAKEN belief is an absolute defense. The jury was instructed that Maye's belief had to be genuine--that Maye had to be facing an ACTUAL threat. The jury was instructed that the actual threat had to be an actual present and urgent threat. Well, police officers who enter a home to serve a search warrant, by a reasonably OBJECTIVE person standard, do not constitute a actual, present, and urgent threat to the defendant's life or his daughter's life.
And, the prejudicial effect of Maye being denied his defense of EXCUSE is apparent when one browses the transcript. In the closing argument, the prosecuting attorney hammered the fact that these officers did not constitute an actual threat as set forth in the justification (self-defense) instruction.
The state has the burden of proving each and every element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. In Mississippi, the state has the burden of proving the NONEXISTENCE of a defense. It was very easy for the state to prove the nonexistence of the defense of justification because it didn't even apply to the circumstances of the case. However, the jury was never instructed about the defense of EXCUSE which did apply to this case. The state was relieved of its constitutional mandate to prove the nonexistence of the defense of EXCUSE beyond a reasonable doubt.
This is not harmless error. This is highly prejudicial error and constitutes REVERSIBLE ERROR (entitling Maye to a new trial) because the error deprived Maye of his constitutional right to due process (guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment) in two respects:
1) The Prosecution was relieved of its onerous burden of proving all the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt including the nonexistence of the defense of EXCUSE; and
2) The Defendant was deprived of effective assistance of counsel because a reasonably competent defense attorney would understand the difference between a justification defense and an excuse defense and defense counsel's incompetence deprived the Defendant of the only valid defense that he had thus guaranteeing his conviction
Glad you brought this up. I'm looking to see if I can find out where this case stands. Wikipedia updated their information on December 19, 2007 but I don't see anything on the outcome of the case.
As of Dcember 10, 2007, Cory was still residing on death row; however, it seems to be at his request. It appears he feels safer there. Here is a link to some info. I am still looking for more.
Cory's sentenced was changed to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Was justice served in this case? I am not convinced it was. However, I am very grateful he no longer faces the death penalty.
Reading this story reminds me of a comment a friend of mine made the other day. "Our laws our fair and just, but every once in a while a case slips through the cracks and someone gets judged unfairly. Don't judge him on how he was judged, but on what the true story is." I find it intresting, I looked up this story, and I couldn't find one place talking about how Maye truley is guilty and everything should be done to make sure he stays on death row......
Oh I agree. I couldn't find a thing that would have caused me to believe he was guilty of anything but justifiable homicide. The whole thing just stinks in my opinion.
Even if they convict they should still be able to find some mitigation though there's always the risk that, once self-defence has gone, a jury will ignore all the evidence on that point. 
. Though,as I say, we expect juries to take an understanding and realistic view.
