Cory Maye's Death Penalty Case

MrBadExample

MrBadExample

CAGiversary!
Feedback
1 (100%)
Cory Maye
Might want to keep a shot of something stiff nearby as you read this one.

Over the course of researching my paper, I came across the case of Cory Maye. Maye today sits on Mississippi's death row, convicted of capital murder for shooting police officer Ron Jones. It's probably worth mentioning that Jones is white, and Maye is black. It's probably also worth mentioning that at the time of his death, Jones' father was police chief of Prentiss, Mississippi, where the shooting took place. It's probably also worth mentioning that the jury who convicted Maye was white. (Note added on 12/12: The jury was mostly white, not all-white)

Here are the details, culled from various media reports and conversations with a couple of people close to the case:

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.

Let's summarize: Cops mistakenly break down the door of a sleeping man, late at night, as part of drug raid. Turns out, the man wasn't named in the warrant, and wasn't a suspect. The man, frigthened for himself and his 18-month old daughter, fires at an intruder who jumps into his bedroom after the door's been kicked in. Turns out that the man, who is black, has killed the white son of the town's police chief. He's later convicted and sentenced to death by a white jury. The man has no criminal record, and police rather tellingly changed their story about drugs (rather, traces of drugs) in his possession at the time of the raid.

The story gets more bizarre from there.

Maye's attorney tells me that after the trial, she spoke with two jurors by phone. She learned from them that the consensus among jurors was that Maye was convicted for two reasons. The first is that though they initially liked her, Maye's lawyer, the jury soured on her when, in her closing arguments, she intimated that if the jury showed no mercy for Maye, God might neglect to bestow mercy on them when they meet him in heaven. They said the second reason May was convicted was that the jury felt he'd been spoiled by his mother and grandmother, and wasn't very respectful of elders and authority figures. The facts of the case barely entered the picture. Gotta' love the South.

It gets weirder. Maye's family terminated his trial attorney after he was convicted. In her place, they hired a guy from California with no legal experience who convinced them that he'd had bad representation (given his lawyer's closing argument, he was probably on to something). The new fellow has since failed on several occasions to file the proper appeals.

Maye's case is an outrage. Prentiss, Mississippi clearly violated Maye's civil rights the moment its cops needlessly and recklessly stormed his home in the middle of the night. The state of Mississippi is about to add a perverse twist to that violation by executing Maye for daring to defend himself.
Click to expand...

Here's a link with a lot more information and clarification.

This appears to be a huge travesty of justice and I hope his lawyer is able to get him off death row. And it's debatable whether he should even be in jail.
 
The worst he should've been convicted for is manslaughter, a less serious crime, but even that is extreme considering the circumstances of this case. This is yet another example of a flawed judicial system, and why the death penalty should be eliminated. In a perfect world, the death penalty is fine, but in America, it's not.

This is why it's a bad idea to live in the south.
 
This account seems extremely biased in favor of the defendant. I suspect the police/prosecution have a much different story to tell. Looking at this biased account alone, I am certainly not prepared to say that any injustice was done.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']Hmm, so if one can't defend themself with a gun, what reason is there for a 2nd amendment?[/QUOTE]

Precisely. This is exactly the reason that the founding fathers wanted citizens to have guns. This stinks.
 
[quote name='sgs89']This account seems extremely biased in favor of the defendant. I suspect the police/prosecution have a much different story to tell. Looking at this biased account alone, I am certainly not prepared to say that any injustice was done.[/QUOTE]

Seconded. It seems like too easy of a story: black man, white cop, southern town, unfair jury.
 
[quote name='Quillion']Seconded. It seems like too easy of a story: black man, white cop, southern town, unfair jury.[/QUOTE]
It also seems easy for you to dismiss the story on a hunch. It's a big internet - find an article that refutes the facts in this one.

I'm not saying the article I linked to is gospel but to dismiss it out of hand is rather lazy.
 
Since I'm taking criminal law this semester I find this case very fascinating. The reason he could be convicted of murder is that he had an unnecessary use of force. The officer he shot, that barged in did not have his gun drawn and therefore did not present a force worthy of lethal force.

Its interesting that in almost every state people believe that if someone looks threatening and is inside your house you have the right to lethal force. This is simply not the case at all. There are very limited situations in which you can use lethal force. Sometimes people can get away with it if they have an understanding jury but it is very apparent in this case that he did not have one.

As far as the degree of murder, I'm assuming that part of Mississippi's Capital Murder statute says that it is always 1st degree murder if you kill a police officer because otherwise I can't figure out how he could have gotten charged with anything higher than 2nd degree murder. There was absolutely no way he could have premeditated and the murder did not occur during the commission of a felony so the only way he could get they felony murder rule to kick in was if the Mississipi's statute included something about murdering a police officer.
 
I'd like to find out more information about what happened immediately after the shooting. Did he express any remorse once he realized he had shot an officer? Was he angry about them breaking into his house? Did he surrender immediately once he knew it was the police?
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']
This is why it's a bad idea to live in the south.[/QUOTE]

This is why baseless generalizations tend to come from people who have no idea what the hell they are talking about.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Since I'm taking criminal law this semester I find this case very fascinating. The reason he could be convicted of murder is that he had an unnecessary use of force. The officer he shot, that barged in did not have his gun drawn and therefore did not present a force worthy of lethal force.

Its interesting that in almost every state people believe that if someone looks threatening and is inside your house you have the right to lethal force. This is simply not the case at all. There are very limited situations in which you can use lethal force. Sometimes people can get away with it if they have an understanding jury but it is very apparent in this case that he did not have one.

As far as the degree of murder, I'm assuming that part of Mississippi's Capital Murder statute says that it is always 1st degree murder if you kill a police officer because otherwise I can't figure out how he could have gotten charged with anything higher than 2nd degree murder. There was absolutely no way he could have premeditated and the murder did not occur during the commission of a felony so the only way he could get they felony murder rule to kick in was if the Mississipi's statute included something about murdering a police officer.[/QUOTE]

In many states killing an officer is a condition that justifies the death penalty. I don't know any state that would be able to seekt he death penalty in this case if it was not a policeman.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']I'd like to find out more information about what happened immediately after the shooting. Did he express any remorse once he realized he had shot an officer? Was he angry about them breaking into his house? Did he surrender immediately once he knew it was the police?[/QUOTE]

In terms of the law, that means nothing.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']In many states killing an officer is a condition that justifies the death penalty. I don't know any state that would be able to seekt he death penalty in this case if it was not a policeman.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, and as a little tidbit of info, in Florida you can be given the death penalty for drug trafficking!
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']In terms of the law, that means nothing.[/QUOTE]
I understand that. I'm just curious about his state of mind then. Was it a tragic accident or something else?

Can't you get the death penalty for shooting a postal worker too? I thought they added several categories of federal workers to that list a while back.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']I understand that. I'm just curious about his state of mind then. Was it a tragic accident or something else?

Can't you get the death penalty for shooting a postal worker too? I thought they added several categories of federal workers to that list a while back.[/QUOTE]

According to deathpenaltyinfo.org the federal homicides for which you can be given the death penalty include:
Murder related to the smuggling of aliens. (8 U.S.C. 1342)

Destruction of aircraft, motor vehicles, or related facilities resulting in death. (18 U.S.C. 32-34)

Murder committed during a drug-related drive-by shooting. (18 U.S.C. 36)

Murder committed at an airport serving international civil aviation. (18 U.S.C. 37)

Retaliatory murder of a member of the immediate family of law enforcement officials. (18 U.S.C. 115(b)(3)[by cross-reference to 18 U.S.C. 1111] )

Civil rights offenses resulting in death. (18 U.S.C. 241, 242, 245, 247)

Murder of a member of Congress, an important executive official, or a Supreme Court Justice. (18 U.S.C. 351 [by cross-reference to 18 U.S.C. 1111] )

Death resulting from offenses involving transportation of explosives, destruction of government property, or destruction of property related to foreign or interstate commerce. (18 U.S.C. 844(d), (f), (i))

Murder committed by the use of a firearm during a crime of violence or a drug trafficking crime. (18 U.S.C 930)


Murder committed in a Federal Government facility. (18 U.S.C. 924(i))

Genocide. (18 U.S.C. 1091)

First-degree murder. (18 U.S.C. 1111)

Murder of a Federal judge or law enforcement official. (18 U.S.C. 1114)

Murder of a foreign official. (18 U.S.C. 1116)

Murder by a Federal prisoner. (18 U.S.C. 1118)

Murder of a U.S. national in a foreign country. (18 U.S.C. 1119)

Murder by an escaped Federal prisoner already sentenced to life imprisonment. (18 U.S.C. 1120)

Murder of a State or local law enforcement official or other person aiding in a Federal investigation; murder of a State correctional officer. (18 U.S.C. 1121)

Murder during a kidnaping. (18 U.S.C. 1201)

Murder during a hostage-taking. (18 U.S.C. 1203)

Murder of a court officer or juror. (18 U.S.C. 1503)

Murder with the intent of preventing testimony by a witness, victim, or informant. (18 U.S.C. 1512)

Retaliatory murder of a witness, victim or informant. (18 U.S.C. 1513)

Mailing of injurious articles with intent to kill or resulting in death. (18 U.S.C. 1716)

Assassination or kidnaping resulting in the death of the President or Vice President. (18 U.S.C. 1751 [by cross-reference to 18 U.S.C. 1111] )

Murder for hire. (18 U.S.C. 1958)

Murder involved in a racketeering offense. (18 U.S.C. 1959)

Willful wrecking of a train resulting in death. (18 U.S.C. 1992)

Bank-robbery-related murder or kidnaping. (18 U.S.C. 2113)

Murder related to a carjacking. (18 U.S.C. 2119)

Murder related to rape or child molestation. (18 U.S.C. 2245)

Murder related to sexual exploitation of children. (18 U.S.C. 2251)

Murder committed during an offense against maritime navigation. (18 U.S.C. 2280)

Murder committed during an offense against a maritime fixed platform. (18 U.S.C. 2281)

Terrorist murder of a U.S. national in another country. (18 U.S.C. 2332)

Murder by the use of a weapon of mass destruction. (18 U.S.C. 2332a)

Murder involving torture. (18 U.S.C. 2340)

Murder related to a continuing criminal enterprise or related murder of a Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer. (21 U.S.C. 848(e))

Death resulting from aircraft hijacking. (49 U.S.C. 1472-1473)
Click to expand...

The one I bolded could possibly be what the situation with postal employees you may be thinking of. For example, if you mailed a bomb to someone and it went off in the postal workers hands and killed them then you could be charged with their murder instead and it would be punishable by the death penalty.

I just noticed bank robbery is on there which I thought was redundant at first because you could already get felony murder from the state in which the bank is in BUT this could apply to states that don't have the death penalty (like my own state of MN). I could sit and read this stuff for hours, I can't get enough of criminal law.
 
[quote name='Strell']This is why baseless generalizations tend to come from people who have no idea what the hell they are talking about.[/QUOTE]

fuck the south.
 
[quote name='evanft']fuck the south.[/QUOTE]

fuck stupidity. What's your point?

I suggest you not reply since you have none, but you haven't convinced me you have a worthy brain cell in your head.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']Hmm, so if one can't defend themself with a gun, what reason is there for a 2nd amendment?[/QUOTE]

The second ammedment I believe does not still apply to us today. At the time all of our founding documents were written there were militias, such as the minutemen.
In regards to the case, it is definetely wrong to shot anyone who is not holding or pointing a weapon at someone. If he wanted to slow him down or was frightened he could have shot somewhere else and not in the area where internal organs are.
With the sentence it is not just. It was done out of fear and it could have happened to anyone. The jurys logic seems kinda convuluted. He should defenitely get something, after all he did shot a man, but the death penalty is plainily to severe in this case. The system needs to get there act together and do something. He should def get some years in prison but not death
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']It also seems easy for you to dismiss the story on a hunch. It's a big internet - find an article that refutes the facts in this one.

I'm not saying the article I linked to is gospel but to dismiss it out of hand is rather lazy.[/QUOTE]

I did a little looking, and there is really very little out there other than bloggers who have already made up their minds.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2005/12/13/publiceye/entry1123405.shtml

Is one of the few major news articles, and it just talks about the bloggers. It is a very big Internet, but you can't trust half of what is out there. Especially what's posted in blogs.

I'll withold my outrage until there is more impartial journalism going on here.
 
[quote name='The_Way_of _Peace']The second ammedment I believe does not still apply to us today. At the time all of our founding documents were written there were militias, such as the minutemen.
In regards to the case, it is definetely wrong to shot anyone who is not holding or pointing a weapon at someone. If he wanted to slow him down or was frightened he could have shot somewhere else and not in the area where internal organs are.
With the sentence it is not just. It was done out of fear and it could have happened to anyone. The jurys logic seems kinda convuluted. He should defenitely get something, after all he did shot a man, but the death penalty is plainily to severe in this case. The system needs to get there act together and do something. He should def get some years in prison but not death[/QUOTE]

The law is very clear on certain aspects on the use of lethal force. There are certain instances were it can be a little cloudy but in this situation the defendent should not have even shot the person. In the eyes of the law it doesn't matter where you shoot someone with a gun, it is always considered using a lethal weapon because the potential for damage is so great. There's even a case law about someone using a knowingly unloaded and the judge states that pointing an unloaded gun at someone is MORE dangerous than pointing a loaded gun because you will not use the proper care with an unloaded gun.

Its very plain to see that due to the fact that (A)the officer did not have is gun drawn and (B)the officer had not made any sort of threat toward anyone in the house (and before someone says it just entering a dwelling house in a threatening manner is not sufficient) that the jury had sufficient evidence to find him guilty of 2nd degree murder. The way he got to the death penalty is (assumingly) that murdering a police officer is part of Mississippi's felony murder statute so therefore it could be bumped up to first degree and thus the death penalty is on the table.

What happened to this guy is not very fair but it was all legal and as a result it will be very difficult for him to get off on appeal.
 
[quote name='The_Way_of _Peace']The second ammedment I believe does not still apply to us today. At the time all of our founding documents were written there were militias, such as the minutemen.[/QUOTE]

That's the point. The hoopla and stink raised by gun nuts, like the NRA seems rather deflated when people are charged with murder for shooting people in their own home.

[quote name='RedvsBlue']In terms of the law, that means nothing.[/QUOTE]
Certainly you've been citing the letter of the law, but not the spirit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top