The Troubling Case of Cory Maye:
Kieran Healy points to an emerging blog movement concerning the very troubling case of Cory Maye, who is on death row in Mississippi for killing a police officer.
The remarkable part of the case is that it seems pretty likely that Maye was acting in self-defense. The police broke into Maye's apartment at night while executing a warrant for drugs, but apparently they had the wrong apartment. Specifically,the police didn't realize that the apartment had been divided into two units, and — at least according to blog reports — Maye was in one and the drugs were in the other.
According to Maye's testimony at trial, as reported in the Hattiesburg American on Jaunary 23, 2004, Maye had no idea that the people breaking in to his apartment were cops, and shot the intruder to protect his young daughter:
Second, the officer Maye shot and killed turned out to be the son of the local chief of police, who was a fourth-generation police officer. The local prosecutor in turn pushed for capital murder charges. (Lots of bloggers are also pointing out that Maye is black and the officer was white, although my recollection of the Baldus study is that the race of the victim and defendant generally aren't believed to exert a strong impact on the likelihood of capital punishment in extreme cases — and I think this counts as an extreme case.)
The MSM hasn't paid any attention to this story, but it should. And I hope the Mississippi Supreme Court will be paying lots of attention, too. For more on the story, visit The Agitator, which has been leading the charge on this case.
The remarkable part of the case is that it seems pretty likely that Maye was acting in self-defense. The police broke into Maye's apartment at night while executing a warrant for drugs, but apparently they had the wrong apartment. Specifically,
According to Maye's testimony at trial, as reported in the Hattiesburg American on Jaunary 23, 2004, Maye had no idea that the people breaking in to his apartment were cops, and shot the intruder to protect his young daughter:
Cory Maye, 23, said he was asleep on a chair in the living room of his Prentiss apartment as his 14-month-old daughter slept in the bedroom when he heard a loud crash at his front door.How could this have led to the death penalty, you're wondering? Well, first of all, I gather that the jury didn't believe Maye's story. Presumably they believed that Maye knew that he was killing an officer who was executing a warrant against him. Whether there was any evidence supporting that belief is unclear; the fact that the police didn't find the drugs in the apartment suggests that this story is pretty hard to believe. The case is now on appeal to the Mississippi Supreme Court, and I hope that court will take a very close look at the evidence.
"I immediately ran to my daughter's room, got a pistol, put in a magazine and chambered a round," said Maye, who is on trial for capital murder in Marion County. "As I laid on the floor by the bed, I heard kicks at the back door. I was frightened, I thought someone was trying to break in on me and my daughter."
;Maye testified that it was dark in his apartment when he heard someone breaking into the back door, which was located in the bedroom.
"That's when I fired the shots," Maye said. "After I fired the shots, I heard them yell 'police! police!' Once I heard them, I put the weapon down and slid it away. I did not know they were police officers."
Second, the officer Maye shot and killed turned out to be the son of the local chief of police, who was a fourth-generation police officer. The local prosecutor in turn pushed for capital murder charges. (Lots of bloggers are also pointing out that Maye is black and the officer was white, although my recollection of the Baldus study is that the race of the victim and defendant generally aren't believed to exert a strong impact on the likelihood of capital punishment in extreme cases — and I think this counts as an extreme case.)
The MSM hasn't paid any attention to this story, but it should. And I hope the Mississippi Supreme Court will be paying lots of attention, too. For more on the story, visit The Agitator, which has been leading the charge on this case.
I really think the time is ripe for people on the Left and Right to join forces on this. How can we distrust government when it comes to benefits and services, and have no qualms about allowing government to kill citizens, knowing full well that the criminal justice system is necessarily flawed?
How can we trust the government to put people in prison for life? Don't you care about them, too?
Baldus claimed that his study did show a race-of-victim effect. Properly interpreted, that would mean, if true, that the death penalty is not being imposed often enough in black-victim cases, not that anyone on death row doesn't deserve to be there.
But it's not true. The federal district court in McCleskey found that Baldus's model left out the completely legitimate factor of the strength of the prosecution's case. Another model that did consider that factor showed no statistically significant race-of-victim effect. Similarly, in a recent study in Maryland, the race-of-victim effect disappeared into the statisitical grass when the county was added to the model. It seems that the urban jurisdictions where most of the black people live tend to be politically liberal (stop the presses!) and elect DA's who seek the death penalty less often in borderline cases. The author of the study calls this "geographic disparity." I call it "democracy."
Further rants on race and the death penalty can be found in my Engage article.
If the description of the case in Orin's post is accurate, that would indeed be disturbing and an appropriate case for relief by executive clemency, if the courts do not overturn the judgment. However, great caution is in order before accepting case descriptions floating around the Internet. These descriptions are often wildly distorted.
The fact that the officer who was killed did not have his weapon drawn (and the fact that the drug agents let him go in first) suggests that they weren't expecting someone inside and that there really was confusion about what was going on.
Furthermore this is an excellent example of why these types of raids should be severely curtailed. Smashing in to an occupied house without warning in the middle of the night should be reserved for extreme cases where there is fear that someone is in immediate danger. The fact that they have become a fixture in the drug war isn't good for the civil rights of Americans.
Unfortunately, the reporting of this case has taken on a life of its own without much regard for the actual facts. Personally, I think Maye was justified in shooting an unannounced intruder no matter whether he was a drug dealer or not. Neither the Second nor the Fourth Amendments have been repealed as far as I know. But the facts of the case should all be presented and made well known before passing any judgment on the validity of the verdict.
Having been to Mississippi, I'd have to say that unless it broke out each state for separate analysis, it's pretty useless for states like that one.
I'm not aware of a systematic study in Mississippi. You would think it would have been the opponents' target of choice, but apparently not.
There is a difference, although I think one of degree, not kind. Reasonable people can disagree on that, I think; I hope you don't find that people who disgree with you are "morally indefensible" and not to be "taken seriously."
But there is a bigger difference in how the legal system treats capital punishment and life sentences, and I think that is indeed troublesome. Each and every case on death row is reviewed with a fine tooth comb by dozens of elite lawyers and activists, not to mention dozens of law clerks and judges. In contrast, no one cares about the much larger gourp of people who are serving life in prison. The irony is that a very high percentage of cases involving capital punishment are reversed, while it is very rare for any one with a life sentence to have that sentence overturned. So if your concern is the reversibility of the judgment and the likelihood of catching an error, it is much greater in the case of capital punishment.
I'm guessing that the jury did not find that Maye was justified in using deadly force in defense of himself or another since it appears that Maye himself was not faced with the threat of deadly force. Pursuant to his own testimony,he didn't see the intruder prior to firing. And, the officers alleged that their guns were not drawn when they entered the apartment.
A person is only justified in the use of deadly force against another if he reasonably believes that that such force is necessary to defend himself or a third person. (That's the rule in NY and presumably elsewhere. See this Wikipedia article.)
I'm not sure, based upon what I've read, that there is a strong argument in support of the contention that he was wrongfully convicted.
Opponents of the death penalty love to say that life in prison is cheaper. One of the reasons it's cheaper is the much lesser degree of scrutiny of the guilt verdict in life in prison cases.
It's a horrible situation an officer was killed, and it is clear we don't have all the facts, but it doesn't seem right that the kicking down of the door itself wouldn't provide enough justification for acting in self defense.
Am I missing something? Don't police normally shout "POLICE" as they enter or is that just on TV?
IIRC the one who was actually shot had his gun holstered and there is also a question as to whether the police identified themselves prior to the shooting. These are all questions of fact for a jury and barring any evidence of misconduct, I’d be cautions about second-guessing those who were actually charged with weighing the evidence including the credibility of the witnesses.
This is one of the few issues where I have supported defendants against the prosecution. I would say that unknown intruders breaking into your home in the night is per se sufficient to justify a belief in the need to use deadly force. The victim of such an assault should not be required to take the risk of ascertaining whether they are armed. That is why police are generally required to (and generally do) announce before entering.
I would say the defendant has a strong case if his version of the facts is believed.
This may seem silly, but can't both sides of the death penalty argument come to some kind of compromise?
Proponents seem offended that a life-sentence would allow the killer to "live" in prison (classically watching cable tv and lifting weights) while the killer's victim is denied those things. There is also the idea that the killer being alive will haunt the victim's family and add to their suffering.
Opponents often cite barbarism and the fact that an execution effectively makes us all the executioner. In the case of an innocent execution, it makes us all murders. Can you weigh one innocent life against 100 guilty killers and say it's okay? Collateral damage? How about ten guilty lives to one innocent? Where do you draw the line?
As we saw with the emergence of DNA, technology can revolutionize penal policy. Why not apply that to this issue? What if instead of a lethal injection, we administer a coma-inducing injection? The prisoner is not killed, we do not kill him, but he is left without his consciousness. He is kept that way indefinitely, until he naturally passes. Wouldn't this address the concerns of both sides of the argument? Cruel and unusual? It could be argued that it is both, but it seems less cruel to me than death. Some might argue that this would cost more money, but that would have to be weighed against the moral cost of killing. Besides, normal prison costs would be greatly reduced since the prisoners would simply be occupying a bed somewhere.
I realize that an innocent put in a coma is not much better off than an innocent executed, but it would still allow his revival if exonerating evidence is uncovered in the future. With forensic technology continually advancing, wouldn't this be a responsible solution?
I believe that we have executed innocent people. The frequency of DNA exonerations seems to confirm it. It has happened.
The justice system is not perfect, but it is not oppressive on its face. When racial, economic, scientific, and political factors are removed, it is an enlightened system compared to most civilizations. But those factors can't be removed, so we have to incorporate them into some type of solution.
Since this is a Mississippi case, Miss. law on self-defense might be relevant:Lester v. State, 862 So. 2d 582 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004). How that's applied is of course debatable, but I don't think that Maye had to see a guy with a gun coming at him.
If Maye's story is correct, this case is a stunning outrage.
Someone breaking into your house in the middle of the night unannounced is the definition of "burglar" absent intent. In Virginia at least, at most likely in Mississippi as well, there is no requirement that I ascertain the intent of the intruder before using deadly force. Nor should there be. It is quite possible that Cory Maye had no idea who was breaking into his house, nor that he had any indication that it was at the police whom he fired (N.B. however, later police testimony apparently asserts that the deceased yelled "Police" upon entering in contravention of the "no knock" warrant). Under such circumstances, it's hard to understand what Mr. Maye (or anyone else) should have waited for.
"the logic she historically has concluded with (to increase the risk of error in capital cases) is not only absurd and depressing, but destroys any point the position would otherwise have"
What does this mean? I don't recall making an argument in favor of increasing risk in capital cases.
One word: bedsores.
If there wasn't a body we'd all be laughing.
Just think, if he'd had his gun out, he might've shot Maye dead and none of us would've heard of either of them.
I suggest you issue a correction.
My personal opinion - Someone who does not know at whom he is shooting when the target has announced that he is a policeman probably deserves what they get: Owning or wielding a gun creates a heavy responsibility. Which leads me to the thought, as a long-time gun owner, that the people who are defending this irresponsible gun owner are in all likelihood, mostly opposed to responsible people owning and using guns.
What difference does it make that there were two warrants, one of which covered Maye's apartment? It might make a difference from a Fourth Amendment standpoint, but I don't know why it matters for the purposes of the substantive offense.
I believe that the relevant sections would be: 1(e)&(f):
(1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or omission of another shall be justifiable in the following cases:
(e) When committed by any person in resisting any attempt unlawfully to kill such person or to commit any felony upon him, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person shall be;
(f) When committed in the lawful defense of one's own person or any other human being, where there shall be reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury, and there shall be imminent danger of such design being accomplished;
It's entirely feasible that, based upon the testimony and the evidence in this case, the jury concluded that a felony was not being committed by the police, which makes 1(e) inapplicable.
So, we're left w/ the issue of whether Maye's belief that a felony was being committed or whether he or a third party was in imminent danger. That would be a question for the jury to decide, along w/ applying the relevant standards for the use of deadly force. I am simply saying that I can see where a jury would find that his decision to fire without any knowledge whatsoever as to who was on the receiving end of the bullets was unreasonable.
And, byrd, you are correct. I mis-spoke re: the duty to retreat. That doesn't apply when in one's home.
If the shooter got off in that case, then this case makes no sense.
I say this as someone who actually lived next to a drug dealer in a duplex while in law school. I shiver at the idea that one day the police could simply decide the want to come smashing in. Mistakes are going to happen, but that's why you yell "police!" Or, here's a thought - maybe stake out the area first before you decide to invade?
When they kick at your front door
How you gonna come?
With your hands on your head
Or on the trigger of your gun
When the law break in
How you gonna go?
Shot down on the pavement
Or waiting on death row
(I hope that's short enough to be fair use.)
I agree with you. However, it has always struck me that just hearing "POLICE" yelled does not mean, in the absence of other hints that it really IS the police rather than a home invader buying some critical time, that a homeowner may not be justified in using deadly force against an intruder who later turns out to be a policeman.
If one lives in a densely populated urban area, the additional hints might need to be pretty minimal. For example, anything that made the party entering very conspicuous to neighbors would suffice (such as very noisy entry from multiple entry points, flashing red lights from police cars outside, maybe a few blips of a police siren from outside the house etc.) as a home invader is unlikely to make him/herself that conspicuous and subject to identification and/or apprehension. I think it is very reasonable to expect the police to provide such overwhelming additional hints where possible when executing a search warrant (obviously, since the element of surprise may need to be maintained, they would probably hit the lights and sirens just as the door was being crashed).
In any location (urban or rural), unless one has VERY valuable assets in their house, a helicopter or two flying overhead with spotlights on the yard/house should probably be enough to convince the occupant that “POLICE” means just that. Again, it is unlikely that a home invader will spend the resources on a helicopter (and perhaps pilot) and due to air traffic control and FAA paper trails and the like, such an act would also seem to expose them to a higher risk of apprehension.
Yes, impersonating a police officer is illegal – but if I were a home invasion robber I would not worry about that – esp. if I was expecting to kill the occupants anyway. Therefore, I would not expect a homeowner to assume that anyone who claims to be “the police” are in fact telling the truth. I guess some defendant somewhere wishes I had been on their jury!
That's right; poor kid died because he didn't know "freeze" in English. He wasn't threatening the homeowner in any way; the homeowner just blew him away for walking onto his property.
You're right, Barry. How can the two cases be reconciled?
I wonder how this commenter came to the conclusion that this defendant was an "irresponsible gun owner." Of course the police are going to claim they announced themselves, whether or not they did.
It seems to me that the exact reason why many people prefer to own a gun is so they can defend their families against intruders in the middle of the night. What good is the right to self-defense, though, if even "long-time gun owners" are going to jump to the conclusion that the person who defended himself must have done so irresponsibly?
Given that you make this statement:
The irony is that a very high percentage of cases involving capital punishment are reversed, while it is very rare for any one with a life sentence to have that sentence overturned. So if your concern is the reversibility of the judgment and the likelihood of catching an error, it is much greater in the case of capital punishment.
it seems you are clearly admitting that trial courts are *not* very good at determining guilt or innocence, so any removed chance to obtain an appeal is a decrease in "catching an error", or an increase in the margin of error.
Now, if my memory about your previous position is incorrect, or you have switched positions since, and you are simply calling for better scrutiny of the cases of all convicted felons by the courts (and the increased funding to allow courts to accomplish this goal), then I am firmly behind you.
Must be a full moon, Greedy Clerk’s right for once ;).
Seriously though, his point is a good one in that the facts appear to be changing quite a bit from how they were initially reported and a lot of folks – who unlike the jury weren’t at the trial and didn’t get a chance to hear all of the legally relevant evidence and weigh the credibility of the witnesses. Barring any evidence of misconduct (and disagreeing with the result, particularly when one doesn’t have all of the facts doesn’t come close to cutting it), I’d urge caution in jumping to conclusions or at the very least, temper my criticisms by asking questions about what the law is and the facts (as many posters have done) rather than making blanket condemnations.
On a related note, there was another more recent shooting by a homeowner – this time of a convicted felon – and the Mississippi may be taking up the issue of changing their State’s laws on the Castle Doctrine as Florida recently did. This suggests to me, that Mississippi’s law on the right of a home owner to shoot an intruder may not be quite as liberal as some may have assumed. An issue that no doubt weighed on the minds of the jury who did not find the Maye’s shooting to be justified.
And no doubt the shooter – facing the possibility of a death sentence – is going to claim that the police didn’t announce themselves, whether they did or not. Particularly when his guilt or innocence may turn on that fact.
That’s why we have juries. In this case a jury of twelve men and women heard the relevant facts and weighed the credibility of the witnesses to decide what actually happened. After doing so, they’re made the decision that Maye’s shooting was not justified according to the laws of the State of Mississippi. You or I might disagree with that decision, but deferring to the jury which was entrusted with this duty and had access to more information than we do from a second or third-hand internet account is hardly “jump[ing] to [a] conclusion.”
My personal opinion - Someone who does not know at whom he is shooting when the target has announced that he is a policeman probably deserves what they get: Owning or wielding a gun creates a heavy responsibility. Which leads me to the thought, as a long-time gun owner, that the people who are defending this irresponsible gun owner are in all likelihood, mostly opposed to responsible people owning and using guns.
I don’t know how you can come to either conclusion. He was convicted for capitol murder. This means he knew he was shooting at a police officer. Assuming he was awakened from a sound sleep, he had seconds to wake up, assess the situation, realize there was a policeman coming toward him, and decide to shot the cop. I find that very hard to believe. I can see a case of manslaughter, ASSUMING facts as reported by the police are correct. Essentially whoever decided to conduct a forced entry raid in the middle of the night created this situation, and hold some responsibility in the outcome. There were a number of possiblities here. One is good, apologies all around when nothing is found, no one injured. The rest bad, one or more police dead, Mr. Mayes dead, the baby dead. Are the risks the police took worth the payoff? As far as the irresponsible gun owner comment.....I honestly don’t know if I would do anything different myself if someone kicked my door in tonight. If I know it’s the cops, then I wouldn’t go anywhere near a gun. If, OTOH, it’s some guy dressed in black running at me......
After all, it's one thing to support the process that yields outcomes like that of Tookie Williams... another thing to support the process when outcomes like this are the result...
More here
That's what Louisiana is for ... making Mississippi look good. Gotta love 'em for that.
Thorley is right to point out that the jury heard the evidence and we haven't. The transcript will presumably come to light in due time. But I do hope that Thorley isn't kidding himself that racism is a thing of the past in rural Mississippi. It seems pretty darn evident that the jury didn't try to imagine themselves in Maye's shoes.
There was just a teensie bit more to it. The original news reports circa 1992-93 had details which are not usually recounted today, now that the late Mr. Hattori is a poster boy for international gun control. Simply "walking onto his property" is a gross oversimplification of the alleged situation.
But back to the unfortunate Mr. Maye. We're firmly in "term of art" territory. I discussed a similar matter a few years ago with some small town police officers in Massachusetts. According to them, the standard for the use of deadly force was that the user of such force had to be in fear for his life. That's the term of art - it doesn't mean literally what it says. A person does not have to wait until a knife is stuck a half inch into him and decide that yes, that might soon be a fatal wound, before he takes action. In MA at that time, an intruder breaking in was automatically considered to put an occupant in fear for his life, with no further evaluation required. And in that case, use of force, up to and including deadly force, would be considered legitimate.
What's up in MA has little to do with the legal details in other states, of course.
It goes to reasonableness if I'm on the jury. Criminals have a greater reason to expect that they guys breaking in to their home are police than do non-criminals. Of course, if they happen to deal drugs from their home, they may have a greater reason to expect non-police to break-in, but that's not going to get much weight from me in the jury room.
I wonder how much coverage this is getting in the European MSM. They're both anti-gun and anti-death penalty, not to mention generally anti-American. This would have to be their dream story; it gives them a chance to bash America from both sides of the case!
I.e., is there any claim of events that this guy had a thing for killing cops, so that he was willing to kill one who announced himself as a police officer? I mean, I don't think he killed the cop to try and get out of the drug charge or whatnot - I'm just trying to see if there's a rational explanation that a defender of the verdict such as Thorley could have given, since what we have here is a credibility determination and the prosecutor's argument seems wildly fantastic at first glance.
As I said before, if you anyone else has any actual evidence of misconduct, feel free to present it. The simple contention that because the defendant was black, the victim white and the jury (or a majority of jurors) were white that they were therefore automatically unable to do their duty as jurors without passion or prejudice doesn’t cut it.
Moreover one of the “facts” that Radley Balko later had to correct was his original contention that the jury was all white. Now he appears to be saying that there were some blacks on the jury. Since the jury would have to render a unanimous verdict to convict on a capital murder case, the racism implication is even weaker in light of the fact that the black jurors (who along with the white jurors would have all agree to vote to convict) would also have to be prejudiced against a black defendant.
Orin:
I might ask you the same question with respect to why you saw fit to (erroneously) introduce the case this way:
Why did you think it was important?
It seems fairly obvious that Mr. Maye's culpability is absolutely zero if the police do indeed break into the wrong home altogether. But that culpability is somewhat more than zero if the police had a valid search warrant (suggesting that Maye had committed some act or ommission to generate probable cause), and executed that warrant within the parameters of the law. I don't know that this in fact happened here, but the fact that a warrant was issued certainly places the actions of the police in a different light doesn't it?
Recent trial in Memphis.
Tennessee's provision:
Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury within the person's own residence is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury to self, family or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence, and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.
1. At night the bad guys are assumed to be armed.
2. You can shoot them to protect property let alone if they are breaking into your house.
3. It is black letter law that you can defend yourself against excessive force by the police. Dynamic entry by definition is excessive force that's the whole idea.
If you live through it in Texas you don't have to worry about jail but most of the time in these type of cases you don't live through it. But it does mean that the police are a lot more carefull. They do a dynamic entry by mistake on Honest Joe Citizen and he blows them away, Even if they are yelling POLICE, he most likely will walk.
Yes.
it seems to be prudent
to stay away from Mississippi.
That's the catch, Wintermute; if the entry is in fact lawful, EVEN IF THE INHABITANT HAS NO WAY OF KNOWING THAT, the exception doesn't apply.
I don't think those who think the verdict is wrong suspect an open and overt conspiracy.
No it's not. The specific circumstances of a specific case determine what is "excessive" and what is not.
Although there was a warrant for Mayes address, it did
not name him. Radley's blog has links to the warrant as well as the evidence (!) sheet. The warrant is pure boilerplate, with the address of the apt filled in. The Judge should be feeling a bit guilty, himself.
The evidence sheet has two times/dates blotted out, and was filled in *after* a police spokesman told the local media that "no drugs were found". And the cops shouted "Police" *before* the back door was kicked in? Right.
The War on Dru^H^H^ the Fourth Amendment continues.
email is human readable - aloud
I don't see the inconsistency. What's wrong with supporting the system when it is just and opposing it when it isn't?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the point of serving a warrant to demonstrate that the authorities are invading your home under cover of law? How can they claim exigent circumstances justifying this style of raid with no investigation of the unit?
Jurors tend to trust law enforcement in any criminal trial, unless the defense gives them a damn good reason not to. In a case like this, where the victim himself is not only a cop but a fourth-generation cop and the son of the police chief, the instinct to give wide latitude to the police is presumably even stronger, if not insurmountable. Not to mention that Mr. Maye's defense, as valid as it may be, smacks of blaming the victim and therefore probably never got much traction with the jury, even notwithstanding the victim's identity.
In any event, I don't envy Gov. Barbour (or his successor) his task one bit when the time comes to consider clemency or a pardon for Mays. After all, if he does spare Mays' life or even set him free, how will the law enforcement community in Mississippi take that?
Greedy: Because your blog post is factually wrong that the police did not know that there were two different apartments. I guess factual accuracy does not matter anymore?
The defendant also had no criminal record, so the argument that:
The defendant was not a criminal. Did not have a criminal record. The police were looking for a drug dealer, but only found a small bag of marijuana and 3 smoked cigars that they thought had marijuana.
He was a criminal? What did he have to hide? Nothing.
Home defense laws generally have a lot to do with the belief of the shooter. In this case, the defendant claims he believed he should fear for his life and the life of his daughter. Perhaps his neighbors dealing drugs and the neighborhood he lived in gave him good reason to believe this.
After he fired, he then heard people yell police and he dropped his weapon and surrendered. Actions of a guilty man? A criminal?
That's the problem I have with this case.
As I see it, the issue of whether the police had the wrong apartment is relevant because it goes to the trustworthiness of the defendant's testimony that he was just acting to protect himself and his daughter. That's the crux of the case: Was he acting in self-defense, or not? A drug dealer sitting on a pile of drugs is much more likely to shoot a cop knowingly to avoid being arrested rather than in self defense; in contrast, a random guy who is just minding his own business at home is most likely acting in self-defense, even if imperfect self-defense. To be clear, though, the key issue is whether the defendant was knowingly involved in wrondgoing, and thus had a motive to shoot a police officer, not whether the police had a valid warrant to search the house. That is, the key question for the purpose of substantive criminal law is the perspective of the defendant, not the perspective of the police.
Paraphrasing part of your second paragraph:
Breaking into someone's home in the middle of the night
Owning or wielding a guncreates a heavy responsibility to make sure that one has the right home, and if one is a police officer executing a no-knock warrant, to be wearing appropriate protective equipment (helmet, shield, vest, etc.). Which leads me to the thought, as a long-time gun owner, that the people who are defending this irresponsible policemangun ownerare in all likelihood, mostly opposed to responsible people owning and using guns.When the shoe is on the other foot, the conclusion follows just as strongly.
I wonder if this is an error in argumentation, ind if so, whether there is a neme for it.
I wonder if this is an error in argumentation, and if so, whether there is a name for it.
Was there anything in the jury instructions on the lesser included offense of manslaughter?
I agree with the suggestions that announcement of "police" could have been (a) indecipherable over sounds of the door breaking in and/or (b) missed because the shooter was still asleep or just waking up.
Did counsel offer any expert testimony about how long it takes to "turn on the ears" when going from deep sleep to wakefulness? Was there any expert testimony about what one might have missed hearing (and then believing, and caring about) while the door was broken in?
A capital case might make sense if the DA had evidence of lying in wait, but I have seen none. Was DA treating this as capital as a favor to the police?
"What if instead of a lethal injection, we administer a coma-inducing injection?"
When? The fly in the ointment is the innocent (for purposes of argument) prisoner is supposed to be available to assist his/her counsel with the appeal, request for writ, etc. I suppose this could be "worked around" (if coma could be started and stopped), but dealing with a client in and out of comas sounds complicated.
Also, I'm not sure it would placate those relatives of the deceased who are hell-bent on having the prisoner executed.
"Besides, normal prison costs would be greatly reduced since the prisoners would simply be occupying a bed somewhere."
Maybe true. Might offer it as an option for a prisoner who wants the appeals processed but has nothing to add to the debate.
"Are we really better off with Tookie Williams dead? Yes. I didn't want him writing any more children's books and dedicating them to convicted murderers. I don't want to hear his proclamations of innocence anymore. Good riddance."
Is this how state-sponsored killing makes us treat life as something less than sacred? Shouldn't we have something more meaningful or non-emotional to offer than this?
That said, I thought TW had a weak and poorly-reasoned clemency request. The innocence idea did not move me at all; nor did the idea that he is best saved because he wrote some books.
The argument I did not see, which is probably the fault of TW and not that of his lawyers, is that TW grew up in South Central LA, from a broken home, with no decent support or role models. He had from the start a greater chance of going to prison than to college. Find me a fifth grader in school in Compton, with little or no family support, and I will show you a disaster waiting to happen. Not in all cases, and not even in most cases, but in a significant percentage of the cases, that black fellow will naturally turn to a life of serious crime as part of his survival mechanism.
Does that excuse? No, but it mitigates and extenuates enough in my mind to say let the arrogant, high IQ, narcissistic TW (RIP) spend the rest of his days in prison.
Not recognizing the criminogentic part of our society, and how it tends to malform and ruin folks like TW, is the mistake made by AS.
Ofc. Krupke "No it's not. The specific circumstances of a specific case determine what is "excessive" and what is not."
In a way you are right. Every case must be judged.
BUT you are mostly WRONG. Why? By the very definition of what a "Dynamic Entry" is. It is the use of OVERWHELMING force. To be so FAST, so Overpowering that the bad guys don't have TIME to do anything, and are to scared to do anything. It can ONLY be justified against Very Bad Guys.
If "Dynamic Entry" is used against honest John Q. Citizen it is ALWAYS massive excessive force. It can't be anything else. Used against felon Martin X. Convict you might (maybe) be able to argue it was not excessive force.
As the Texas Rangers told the Congress critters. They would have walked up to the door, knocked on it, and served the Branch Dividians the Search Warrant. It is unlikely they would have had any problems. If the people don't cower in fear and freeze "Dynamic Entry" can get you in a Heap of trouble.
I don't see any way around it, but I find it troubling that findings of fact about an (unfortunate event, breach of the peace), that the rest of society is supposed to take as such, can turn on events that had nothing to do with the actual event. To some extent, it appears to be allowing unrelated evidence in: if the cops mistakenly bust down my door,I have a few pill I shouldn't, and something unfortunate happens, I suddenly become "more guilty", even if those pills have nothing to do with anything.
To be clear, though, the key issue is whether the defendant was knowingly involved in wrondgoing, and thus had a motive to shoot a police officer, not whether the police had a valid warrant to search the house. That is, the key question for the purpose of substantive criminal law is the perspective of the defendant, not the perspective of the police.
And your example above of "a pile of drugs" is a fine example of the reasoning that goes into these sorts of decisions in general. But for this case, it appears that a tiny amount of pot was found, and there are even questions about that came to be.
So I guess my question is, assuming those are the facts, how much more intent does a tiny amount of drugs convey to a court than if there were none? What if he harbored illegal pets instead - would there be a difference, due to the nature of the warrant, or is there a general "guilty mind" inference?
You miss the point. Actually, you miss several points. First, the Mississippi statute you cite reads, in relevant part:
When persons unknown attempt to forcibly enter one's occupied dwelling, without identifying themselves, at night, in a neighborhood prone to drug dealing, I'd say that gives the occupant reasonable grounds to believe that a felony (burglary, home invasion, etc) and personal injury is imminent.
Second, Maye received the death penalty. Even if his fears were determined to be unjustified and his assumption unreasonable, that sounds like a case of negligent homicide / manslaughter to me. Especially in light of the alleged contributing behavior of the police. At worst it's a case of murder with mitigating circumstances. You sure as hell don't execute someone for making a mistake about the legal niceties of permissable force when suddenly awoken to violent unknown intruders.
Hell, on this very site we can't agree as to Maye's justification, and we're generally legally savy, have time to reflect and research and aren't faced with fear of physical harm. Unfortuntely, Maye didn't have the option of runing to his computer, and googling the Mississippi self-defence statute. And, even if he did, as you have demonstrated, even that's no guarantee of getting it right.
At common law, burglary was a captial crime and was limited to illegal entry into an occupied dwelling. This was because of the high risk of violent confrontation that such entry created. Except in exceptional circumstances, there should be a strict requirement that police identify themselves before attempting such entry. The alleged failure of the police to do so created an inherently dangerous and stressful situation. Now the state wants to kill the person involuntarily thrust into that situation because of a decision he made in the heat of the moment.
Bottom line, if your an officer entering my home, it will occur without altercation after I have read the warrant to search the premise. Legal presidence might state otherwise, but my home is protected by my reading of the Constitution. I hope Corey Maye is protected by that document as well.
There is no doubt that a policeman, and probably a good one died, and the life of another, perhaps entirely innocent person is in jeopardy. All of this is as a result of a no knock warrant served in the middle of the night.
I was taught as a child that a no knock break in to a home in the middle of the night was an act of terror, of government sponsored terror, of the kind associated with Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. That such things are permitted in this country is a terrible scandal, and is what created this whole tragedy. The legislation that permits this and the legislators who passed that legislation are the real criminals in this case.
It seems to me that the guilt or innocence of Mr. Maye depends entirely on his state of mind when he shot the officer. If it had not registered with him that he was shooting a policeman, then he is innocent. If he knew he was shooting a policeman then he is guilty.
My problem with the verdict is that I see no way that I or the jury can delve into the mind of the defendant to resolve this question: did he know who he was shooting? Nor do I see any evidence of any kind that could possibly establish the state of his mind at the moment of shooting beyond reasonable doubt. So I cannot imagine evidence that could have convinced a jury to convict.
Moreover, the actual behavior of Mr. Maye after the shooting does not seem consistent with him knowingly shooting the policeman. Apparently he threw down his gun and raised his hands. (That the other policemen did not shoot him corroborates this statement) If his intent was to shoot policemen, why did he not shoot at them as well?
It has been asserted that the dead policeman was not armed. Most policemen I know carry arms when on duty. I find it difficult to believe that a policeman accustomed to carrying arms would leave his weapon at home when going on a midnight raid on a suspected drug dealer. That he had not drawn his weapon is more plausible, but suggests that he was shot while breaking down the door, which actually supports the notion that Mr. Maye had not time to hear that he was a police officer rather than a thug.
I
t has been asserted by some here that the fact that a warrant was issued against an unknown resident of his house implies that there was evidence of his guilt of some sort of crime, but that evidence died with the policeman. The warrant was issued by a judge, and that judge must be in possession of the information that convinced him to issue it. This did not die with the policeman, and should be available. Was it brought out at the trial?
A potential difficulty with a fair trial in a small town is that the dead policeman was not only the son of the chief of police, but was probably known to most of the members of the jury. If he was a nice and popular guy, they may well have been convinced that his death was a tragedy and that somebody should pay for it. And who else but the shooter? If he was not a nice guy, and his father is a feared figure, then they might well be afraid of letting the shooter off. Thus the shooting death of a policeman who is the son of the chief of police should always be tried in a different venue from the home town, and especially so if his family is popular and highly respected.
Finally, the statement that no appeal has been filed in this case is alarming, and suggestive of the possibility that his defense has been less than competent.
Second, after reading the text of the actual law posted by Nicole and the description of the facts in the link, I think the jury got it right. Again, here's the text of the justification:
When committed in the lawful defense of one's own person or any other human being, where there shall be reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury, and there shall be imminent danger of such design being accomplished;
(emphasis added)
Note that there is no "reasonable ground" qualifier in the highlighted portion. Query: does this then mean that it is irrelevant whether Maye reasonably believed there was imminent danger of great harm? I think so! The only question for the jury is whether there actually was imminent danger of great harm - not whether Maye believed himself to be in imminent danger of great harm. And given the warrant and holstered guns, it turns out that Maye was not in such imminent danger.
Am I reading the statute wrong? (Or is it a bad statute?)
Where, in all the whining about this case, is the oft-repeated mantra about the sanctity of the jury and how they're a bulwark of protection against the government... or does that only apply when they acquit, but not when they rule differently than you would have based on your media-fed view of the case?
Remember, the government had the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, both as to guilt and punishment, and convinced a jury on both issues. Unless you've read a transcript, or saw the demeanor of the witnesses so as to judge their respective credibility, the default ought to be that the jury made the right decision.
You've contradicted yourself in two sentences. If you meant to say that the defendant wasn't the criminal they were looking for, you may be right, but it isn't relevant to his reasonable belief that the intruders were LE or bad guys.
I'd be dismayed to learn that I live in a society where, when unknown persons break down my door in the middle of the night, I have no recourse to deadly force to protect myself. (I say this as a NON-gun owner.) Of course, they COULD be there to commit a misdemeanor, or to notify me that I've won a sweepstakes, they could be drunken college kids who've mistaken my place for theirs, or they could be police who've just forgotten to announce themselves. But none of these possibilities, in my view, suffice to erase the reasonableness of my assumption that people who break into your home in the middle of the night for no apparent good reason are there for felonious purposes.
I'd be dismayed to learn that I live in a society where, when unknown persons break down my door in the middle of the night, I have no recourse to deadly force to protect myself. (I say this as a NON-gun owner.) Of course, they COULD be there to commit a misdemeanor, or to notify me that I've won a sweepstakes, they could be drunken college kids who've mistaken my place for theirs, or they could be police who've just forgotten to announce themselves. But none of these possibilities, in my view, suffice to erase the reasonableness of my assumption that people who break into your home in the middle of the night for no apparent good reason are there for felonious purposes.
I read it as saying justification requires (a) the defendant has reasonable grounds to believe there is a design to either (i) commit a felony or (ii) to do some great personal injury to the defendant or another person, AND (b) there ACTUALLY WAS (not merely that the defendant had reasonable grounds to believe) imminent danger of such design being accomplished.
Now perhaps that's a strange way of looking at it, but I think that's what the statute literally says.
Here's a solution: if the police want to strain 4th amendment notice requirements, they take the risk. That's right: it's a dangerous job, they know it going in, and if they want to bust down doors in the middle of the night without genuinely knocking, announcing, and allowing the occupants to examine the instrument (which is of course a necessity in drug cases - assuming those are legitimate in the first place), they take the risk of a slug. We buy them kevlar body suits if we have too; the state should bear the expense rather than hoping that prosecuting people like Maye will deter.
Mr. Maye's role in the shooting not being in dispute, his defense had the unenviable task of convincing the jury that his actions did not rise to the level of a crime, much less a capital one. To have a reasonable shot at success, the defense would have to have a jury that is open-minded enough not to regard the killing of a law enforcement officer while that officer is carrying out his duties in good faith as an open-and-shut, prima facie crime regardless of the circumstances. I submit that it would be a daunting task to find twelve such people in any given jurisdiction in the country, much less in a law-and-order Southern state like Mississippi. A change of venue might have increased the likelihood of success from around 00.01% to around, say, the 5-10% range, but that's still a steep uphill battle.
1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or omission of another shall be justifiable in the following cases:
When committed in the lawful defense of one's own person or any other human being, where there shall be reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury, and there shall be imminent danger of such design being accomplished;
The issue is: should it be parsed as
1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or omission of another shall be justifiable in the following cases:
When committed in the lawful defense of one's own person or any other human being, where there shall be reasonable ground to apprehend (a design to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury, and there shall be imminent danger of such design being accomplished;)
or
1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or omission of another shall be justifiable in the following cases:
When committed in the lawful defense of one's own person or any other human being, (where there shall be reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury,) and (there shall be imminent danger of such design being accomplished;)
In the former case an apprehension of imminent danger is enough to create self defense, while in the latter, actual imminent danger is required.
My guess is that the law was meant to require that the danger of the felony had to be imminent and not that it had to be real, which would favor the first interpretation.
Yours,
Wince
The fact that "there shall be" is repeated makes your second variant the only possible reading of the grammar.
However, there's more persuasive out: "such design" refers back to the first part. So the question is whether the two part test is:
A. (1) reasonable apprehension of danger
(2) immenence of such (reasonably apprehended danger)
or
B. (1) reasonable apprehension of danger
(2) immenence of "such design" and actual existence of that design
The second reading seems rather more forced than the first. It would mean that the sole purpose of the first clause would be to allow the death penalty to apply to a defendant who actually acted in self defense, but even so was unable to create reasonable doubt that he might have had a reasonable apprehension of that actually true fact.
Of course you are reading the statute wrong, and yes it is awkwardly drafted.
To apply your reading violates a basic premis of stutory interpretation.
If, as you suggest, the second clause requires that the threat actually be real, that renders the first clause, that the defendant have a 'reasonable apprehension' null and void.
Anytime the threat is real, the defendant's apprehension of that threat will of course have been reasonable.
However, under your reading, if the threat is not real, then the fact that the defendant's apprehension was reasonable becomes irrelevant.
As a result, the second clause renders the first entirely superfluous.
Furthermore, the determinative factor in a self-defense case MUST be the reasonable belief of the defendant. Otherwise, anytime anyone ever used deadly force to defend himslef, no matter how reasonable his belief that the threat was real, he would be subject to prosecution if he turned out to be wrong.
For example, imagine that you awake to find a masdek intruder standing over your bed, brandishing a knife and declaring that he is going to kill you and rape your wife. You retrieve your gun from the bedside table and fatally shoot him.
It turns out that you were actually in no danger. The intruder was, in fact, only an actor hired by your neighbor as an ill-conceived practical joke.
Sorry, A..S, but as you read the statute, you're guilty of murder because there was not real threat. Your reasonable fear is irrelevant.
If the law says that then, to quote Mr. Bumble, the law is an ass. When a particular interpretation reaches an absurd result, it is a well established rule of statutory construction that one should generally reject such an reading on the grounds that it could not have been what the drafters intended. See, e.g., Bruce v. Gregory, 65 Cal.2d 666, 673 (1967).
And this happened in the land of liberty. heh.
Your reading also effectively makes the right of self defense illusory.
Faced with a violent home invasion from which I cannot escape, I must choose between (a) using deadly force or (b) not using deadly force.
But, as you read the law, if I choose (a) and I am wrong, no matter how reasonable my fear, the state can put me to death. And, if I choose (b) and I am wrong, then the intruders can kill me.
The legislature simply could not have intended that it be incumbant upon a citizen, faced with what reasonable appears to be a life threatening assault, to correctly guess the unspoken subjective intentions of the perpetrator, and to be subject to possible execution should the citizen guess wrong.
"Query: does this then mean that it is irrelevant whether Maye reasonably believed there was imminent danger of great harm? I think so! The only question for the jury is whether there actually was imminent danger of great harm - not whether Maye believed himself to be in imminent danger of great harm. And given the warrant and holstered guns, it turns out that Maye was not in such imminent danger."
Scott v. State, 203 Miss. 349, 353-54 (1948):
Still good law in Mississippi. (You'll get a yellow flag in Westlaw, but it doesn't have to do with this issue.)
Does anyone know if any facts were brought out about the defendant that would suggest a reason why he was given death instead of life imprisonment for shooting someone who busted into his own house? The way I have read it, he had no prior criminal record, but was something else amiss? Or was it just the fact that he was black?
I mean, I hate to play the "racism" card, but does ANYONE here think that there is ANY chance the jury would have imposed death on a white man with a child at home and no criminal record?
Especially if you have reason to believe that your neighbor may be selling drugs. A few years ago I had the misfortune of living next to characters most likely involved in selling drugs, and had my door been kicked down in the middle of the night, regardless of how the intruders identified or didn't identify themselves, I might well have shot first and asked questions later.
And this could also explain why Mr. Maye borrowed a (what turned out to be stolen) gun from a friend. ("Man, I think my new landlord's selling drugs." "Hey, take this. You never know when you might need it.")
As regards the "traces of marijuana," while you wouldn't find a bag in my house, I'm guessing that if you searched all my gatefold LPs, you might come up with a trace or two stuck in the creases. Would this be enough to, after the fact, assert that a warrant was, well, warranted? It certainly should not be enough to warrant a warrant, before the fact. And in Maye's case, it seems highly unlikely that he would have knowingly shot a police officer to try to avoid being busted for what was at most a misdemeanor.
My other question is, since the prosecutor intimated that quite possibly Maye had time to flush a bunch of drugs, shouldn't they have tried to find the possibly flushed drugs? One flush usually doesn't clear everything out of a house's plumbing (at least it never does on CSI....)
At worst Maye is guilty of imperfect self-defense, which (depending on the jurisdiction) is usually manslaughter. Most likely Maye was scared out of his mind and fired at the people coming through his daughter's door in the middle of the night. Terrible police work and someone died as a result. Even if there were drugs in the apartment, the risk associated with this type of search can't possibly warrant it.
I'm looking forward to--fearing, actually--a Mississippi Supreme Court opinion indulging in every reasonable factual inference in favor of the judgment below and then federal habeas corpus review giving deference to all reasonable state court factual findings.
Additionally, we weren't jurors at this trial, so we're in no position to second guess the jurors' decision. There were issues of fact which they had to assess, including whether the police identified themselves. Many posts above allege that the officers did not identify themselves, but there was apparently testimony that they did.
If the jurors believed that the officers did identify themselves and that Mayes heard them, then according to the MI statute re: capitol crimes, by shooting a police officer, he committed a capital offense.
The next step for the jury would be to consider the MS affirmative defense of self defense as set forth above in my prior post. It appears to be poorly drafted, and we would need to review the trial transcript in order to see how the jurors were instructed on that issue. The language of the statute is not as important on appeal as would be the actual jury instructions in this case. And, we'd have to review relevant caselaw on any number of issues.
So, making arguments regarding the facts and law in this case seems somewhat pointless to me, given that we're collectively lacking the information necessary to debate this in an intelligent and knowledgeable fashion.
He had no criminal record. Not even a misdemeanor.
As for the drugs found in his place, there is a possible issue with the evidence found in that the evidence report for the neighbors duplex was filled out and turned in the night before, but the evidence report for Cory Maye's half of the duplex wasn't filled out until 6am the next morning (With additional times scratched out on the form).
Regardless, the possession of trace amounts of marijuana would not be motive to knowingly murder a police officer, nor would it be relevant to the discussion of the perp's innocence or guilt.
As to the reason the statute is poorly drafted, it's because the basic statute dates back at least to 1906. It reads strangely to us because it's old. But that doesn't mean we can't figure out what it means: We have nearly one hundred years of case law gloss on the statute.
That said, I largely agree with you: Maye has had his day in court, and a jury with access to far more facts than we have has made its decision. Generally speaking, the jury's factual findings are sacrosanct. We can speculate all we like about whether the jury's factual findings were correct -- bearing in mind that we weren't present at the trial and don't have a transcript (and even a transcript is a poor substitute for actually hearing and seeing the testimony) -- but our agreement or disagreement doesn't matter. The jury found what it found, and as long as there was some minimal quantum of evidence to support its findings, no court will disturb them. (Of course errors of law are another matter. Perhaps the trial judge erroneously refused to let in potentially exculpatory evidence, or allowed in unduly prejudicial evidence, or wrongly instructed the jury on the law. But we don't know anything about those issues right now.)
However, it's not pointless to ask factual questions about the case. Juries sometimes give the wrong result, and this case is one that, on its face, seems close enough to the line to worry about. While appellate courts for the most part have to pretend that juries never make mistakes, the executive -- who wields the clemency power -- doesn't. If there are reasons to think that the Maye jury may have gotten it wrong, they're worth airing. Sometimes the system works just as it's designed to work and still produces a bad result. We should care about those cases, and try to correct the bad results.
Of course not. Similarly, we have no business second-guessing the decisions of the juries to acquit O.J. Simpson or to convict Leo Frank. After all, they saw the evidence and we didn't.
Seamus, I realize that you were being sarcastic, but I completely agree with that statement. There's a reason that we have trials, as opposed to a finder of fact reviewing transcripts of testimony or the like: unless you were there and heard all of the evidence, you're in no position to make judgments as to the conclusions drawn from that evidence.
We can debate general issues all that we'd like (such as "one should be allowed to shoot at an intruder in one's home"), but I find it a bit absurd and pointless to debate the "facts" in this case given that the "evidence" has been gleaned from any number of hearsay (or double and triple hearsay) sources.
Respectfully, your call for the blind acceptance of jury verdicts is, at best, very naive and, at worst, disgraceful. To declare that one should automatically accept the findings of a jury is an invitation to injustice.
Juries do damned fool and sometimes wicked things from time to time. God knows that's true in Mississippi (and I say that with regret and from experience, having been born and raised there).
Mississippi juries acquited Byron De La Beckwith, the murderers of Emmitt Till and the murderers of civil rights workers Chaney, Goodman &Schwerner. By your reasoning, the nation should have accepted rather than decried those verdicts and the federal government was wrong to second guess them and seek subsequent federal prosecutions on the same facts.
Injustice doesn't get a free pass just because it was perpetrated by 12 folks in a courtroom rather than a mob in the street.
Is Maye's case an injustice? I don't know. But the reported facts raise serious questions and people not only have a right but a duty to raise questions regarding the outcome.
Well if the Constitution's prohibition on double jeopardy has any meaning, then yes the federal government was most certainly wrong to try to them a second time based on the same set of facts.
As far as a private citizen questioning the verdict, that's certainly his or her perrogative, but barring any evidence of misconduct, I have to agree with the previous posters that the jury should probably get the benefit of the doubt.
I suspect that in some cases they are not.
But, having handled numerous criminal appeals, I can assure you that the factual information that those posting here are using to debate their position on this case is questionable at best, and most likely incorrect. Only after reviewing the record on appeal are you in a position to make an *informed* argument regarding the factual and legal issues.
You can make general arguments as much as you'd like re: hypothetical scenarios and general legal propositions, but in my opinion it's nearly impossible to make informed and cohesive arguments re: the jury's finding unless you've reviewed the record on appeal.
I wish I was elsewhere
I wish I was else-when
Than after the Patriot Act
In a lonely final stand
The night was like any other
My wife and son were in bed
When I awoke from slumber
And walked barefoot to the den
I didn't turn on any lights
Because the house was mine
I knew every turn and crevice
Could move like a cat in the dark
I wish I was elsewhere
I wish I was else-when
Than remembering the moments
After the door was rammed
I hear glass break upstairs
And then concussion grenades
Lit up the bedrooms above me
With roar fit to wake the dead
My wife and I had assumed
That intruders were just a gang
For we'd never done anything
To merit this pre-dawn raid
My wife and son tried to fight
The ninjas behind bright lights
But they were alone and stunned
I heard rattle of MP-fives
I wish I was elsewhere
I wish I was else-when
And not in my ruined home
With my family freshly dead
I thought to my self: "I am dreaming"
This gang just couldn't be Feds
But they acted just as one would expect
Shooting women and children dead
They hadn't found me yet
As I wasn't asleep in bed
My deer rifle was close by
What I wanted to say, it said
I retreated and so did they
Watching me from the outside
From the basement I still could tell
That they set my house on fire
In the choking smoke, I could just wait
Barefoot on cement basement floor
I wanted to take just one more of them
On my journey to the Beyond
I wish I was elsewhere
I wish I was else-when
Instead of this cold basement
At bay like a cornered rat
One more coal-scuttle helmet
Came up above barricade
And though my hands were shaky
I connected the one shot I made
The heat got beyond enduring
But the smoke, it got me first
And the house became a pyre
For me and two other corpses
The newspapers ran the story
That a three-person terrorist cell
Were taken down in pre-dawn hours
And that two brave policemen fell
I wish I was elsewhere
I wish I was else-when
Perhaps in the Sherwood Forest
With like-minded armed men
...I must mention that I never cheer for revenuers in movies, and consider films about the narcs to be as disgusting as movies that glorified Gestapo or NKVD.
Just as with the verdict itself, I suspect the fact that the dead man in this case was a cop acting in good faith in the line of duty had more to do with the death sentence than did race. Again, it's a pretty safe bet that most Americans cannot (or at least could not, before this case came along) even countenance the idea that killing a law enforcement officer acting in good faith in the line of duty could ever be justified under any circumstances.
To the extent that the Maye jurors held that mindset, I would not have expected them to be any more lenient toward Maye in the penalty phase than I would expect them to be toward a cop-killer whose intent was clearly and genuinely malicious.
* Not referring to Orin Kerr, since he did not cite the incorrect info and at least took issue with possibilities rather than false "facts".
Yes, the jury, having sat throught the entire trial, had access to information tht you and I have not seen. So what? That in no way innumizes them from criticism and/or second guessing. I would much rather have the jury's decision questioned, probed and criticized, only to find out that it was right and Maye deserved to die, than I would have it held sacrosanct and have Maye executed unjustly.
And the argument you put forth--, deference based upon a jury's access to more information -- would logically apply to any body of governemnt. Don't question Bush's decision to go to war in Iraw, he had access to intelligence information you will never see. Congress hods hearings, consults experts and reviews staff reports before legislating, so don't question the latest spending bill. The State Dept is too cosy with the Saudis? Our diplomats are much better informed than us, trust them. Torture by the CIA? The CIA has access to untold secret intelligence we can't begin to imagine, so who are we to question.
My view, and the view enshrined in the First Amendment, is that criticism, questoning and second guessing is not only a fundamental right of a citizen, it is a huge benefit to the institution subjected to it. It tests it actions and keeps it honest. I want every single jury in America to know that, by God, what they do in that jury room is going to be examined and that they may catch hell if they get it horribly wrong or succumb to their prejudices.
No instrumentality of government should be above reproach. Indeed, the actions of every one of them, including juries, should be fair game. That's the biggest and best difference between the country where I was raised (the US) and the country where I now live (Vietnam), which is why I applaud the blogosphere inquiry into the Maye jury's actions, even if that inquiry turns out to be wholly unfounded and unfair.
Deference is for slaves, not free men.