If someone busts into my house and announces he or she is an officer of the law, do I have to believe them? Once inside my home, I, as an honest and law abiding citizen, have every right to shoot them in self defense.
Where is that petition?
I found it somewhere by going through the link on the first post.
I won't divert this thread with a death penalty digression but I would bet 20 to 1 that if we're really seeing all the evidence; the system will correct this error long before the execution is carried out. It seems clear to me; that any change of venue would result in a different verdict. I don't think it possible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a man, awoken by his daughter's bedroom door being kicked in, knew it was the police. It's too far from adding up for me to believe the conviction has a chance at holding up. Perhaps the operators of the Kangaroo Court know this and thought the interim between the conviction and the inevitable overturn was a just way to grant their beloved Police Chief some revenge. Maybe the prosecuted out of friendship but didn't think the jury would return a guilty verdict? Or perhaps they think the interim jailing is justified insofar as it sets an example that cop-killing will always result in doom... fearing a "charges dropped" could result in less justifiable cop-killing (that too, is a crying shame). I realize straight racism is probably the pinnacle reason, but there could be other factors. It may well be that the DA did an extraordinary job in the face of an incompetent adversary. We've all seen wrong positions defended brilliantly. Travesty, anyway you slice it, but I don't believe we'll be seeing this presumably innocent man executed. 20 to 1 is ungenerous since I believe the true odds are probably more like 10,000 to 1. However; any takers?
The incompetent adversary sounds like a big part of it. When I was trying to track down the jury instructions I referred to (still haven't found them!) I found reference to the fact that Maye's attorney didn't have any jury instructions because she "didn't think the case would go this far..."
That, too, is a big part of my objection to the death penalty, though, as that's often a part of the picture. (Incompetent defense attorneys for people who can't afford better...)
I don't normally take bets but I'm taking a leap of faith here and I'm with you. From your lips to God's ears.
I couldn't sleep last night. My husband and I discussed this for hours. He is taking the petition site to work and spreading the word also. So, if we all do our part then I think you are right on ~ this execution will not take place.
Fedral, bless you for bringing this to everyone's attention. Bless all of you so willing to do something about this!
I don't know a lot about the law and such but isn't it rather common practice in a possible death penalty case that the lawyer works on the appeal process and arguments against the death penalty while they are working the actual case? The lawyer seems to have made a decision it wouldn't go that far so why should he do this? Wouldn't that constitute incompentent representation?
The only question/worry I have is if the Appeals Court is going to look at the merits of the case or rely solely on if there were any mistakes made by the prosecution/judge during the trial resulting in the verdict being overtuned. I don't have the answer, only the question. Many courts will not overthrow a jury verdict unless there is sufficient reason to believe the jury could not reasonably reach their conclusion based on the evidence given, or if significant errors were made.
Guilty verdicts in capital cases are automatically appealed, but what is the Court of Appeals looking at? Hopefully there is sufficient reason to throw out the verdict, but that only puts the case back in the lower courts, right?
Desipte being a total pacifist I would have also fired if I thought my life or my family were in danger. I've been to Mississippi. There's plent of reason to have a gun in ones home.
being not guilty is hardly a reason
(sorry this knee jerk reaction comes from a long time opponent of capital punishment)
I'm curious about that too, J_B.
Momma Angel, note that I said, "The incompetent adversary sounds like a big part of it." In other words, my point is that it does sound like the lawyer was incompetent (other stuff too, not just that), at least in a layperson's definition. There might be a legal definition of "incompetent" that has a higher standard.
I know you weren't talking to me about ...being not guiity is hardly a reason.....but I am trying to follow this conversation and I am kind of lost. Can you help?
Thank you. I wasn't sure that's what you meant. Does anyone know if that would be enough of a reason to overturn the verdict or at least give Cory a new trial?
I really appreciate everyone coming together on this cause.
After all the ugly argument and debate on the Tookie Williams case, I was dreading the inevitable naysayers that usually scream 'Fry him'.
I appreciate everyone's efforts to spread the word and hope that some good can come of this.
I haven't slept well since I heard about this case. Throughout my life, whenever I saw people in prison, I could always say to myself. "If they hadn't done whatever it is that they did, they wouldn't be rotting in jail'" I could also think to myself. I've got nothing to fear about going to prison, since I'd never do anything that could get me thrown in prison.
I keep putting myself in this poor guys shoes and ask myself over and over if I would have done ANYTHING different than he did...
My answer is always NO.
So how can you put a man on DEATH freakin ROW for protecting his family?
The first right of evey being is the right to protect ones life and the life of one's family.
You shouldn't get killed for that.
How can they put him on death row when there is reasonable doubt still out there? Compromised evidence and testimony?
I am just astounded that no one on that jury had any doubt about this guy being guilty.
Momma Angel wrote:
Steve, I know you weren't talking to me about ...being not guiity is hardly a reason.....but I am trying to follow this conversation and I am kind of lost. Can you help?
The American "Justice System" has not allowed the question of guilt or innocence to deter it from executing many (mainly black) prisoners over the years. Whats so different about this case?
I served on a jury earlier this year for some dinky little thing. I was pretty surprised at the verdict we came to. Bt, we did because of the instructions we were given by the judge. We followed them to the letter. Fortunately, it helped the defendant because we found her not guilty.
In Cory's case, I don't see how there was any leeway given by the judge and I feel that is totally wrong in this instance. There are too many mitigating circumstances in this case to have been disallowed as they seemed to have been.
So, is the problem the law needs to be changed? I don't know exactly who or what decides what instructions are given by a jury. I wish Debra Law would show up in here because I am sure she could help explain some of our questions.
I'm still pretty amazed at the fact there were NO written records of this investigation. They died with the police officer? Something, to me, about that is so fishy.
We are getting to read a lot of details that might or might not have been presented to the jury. Only the trial transcripts will show what testimony the jury heard and what they had for information on which to base their decision. I fully agree with Steve, guilt or innocence has never been an issue in overturning the death penalty. Did he get a fair trial by a jury of his peers? That is often the only standard applied.
Thank you for responding. Makes sense. What's different about this case? I can't speak for everyone else but I can tell you what is different about it for me.
If this execution is allowed to take place, then it takes away security. It takes away the fact that if this were to happen in my house, I don't have the right to protect my home without having to fear being put to death? Someone, just because they have a piece of paper can storm into my house in the middle of the night and scare the devil out of me and expect me to just go, "Uh, ok, you be friend or foe? before I do something about it? They have the "right" to put my life in danger and yet I have no recourse? We're not just talking about someone's rights here, we are talking about lives.
I had a friend once that was sued by the man that robbed his trailer because my friend shot him in the leg! The robber sued and won! Now, we are to sit in our homes and at anytime someone can bust in the door with a piece of paper and if I defend myself, my home, my family, I die? Something is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO wrong with that!
I normally don't get involved in this particular type of issue. But, I can't stay out of this one. Not this one. Something has to be done. Cory needs to go home to the daughter he was trying to protect. We rail against parents that don't protect their children. We rail against those that continually break the law and nothing is done about it. I think we need to rail against the fact that a decent member of society with NO CRIMINAL history at all was protecting his family and his home and he is being persecuted for it.
Bless you shewolfnm!
I cant argue against that. Of course you should be able to take reasonable measures to protect your property your family and yourself. This is common sense. And that is what the American "Justice System" lacks imo.
I completely agree.