Please help save an innocent man from execution

I have been wanting to say something for a bit here, but really didn't want any focus at all taken off what everyone is trying to do here, but I think it needs to be said. If I'm wrong, for saying it, then please forgive me.

There are millions of causes in this world. More than I think any one of us knows about as individuals. Yes, maybe I should have been paying more attention, Joe, but the fact is, we all choose our battles. Certain things touch us in different ways and those are the things that we put our time and effort into.

Right now, the issue is not whether there should be a death penalty or not. The issue is THIS person shouldn't have gotten the death penalty, and those of us that choose to, are trying to do something about it.

If we sit here and focus on the ones we are not helping or the causes we don't actively participate in, we are going to mire ourselves in negativity and that often leads to a feeling of "oh well, what can I do about it?"

We may not all like each other on A2K but in this thread everyone is uniting in a common cause for the common good. We, can't champion every cause. We can't champion every person for one cause. We can only do what we can do when we can do it. And that is how to start to make a change.

And if I offended anyone by this, I apologize.

Re: Please help save an innocent man from execution



Fedral:

This is an interesting case involving REVERSIBLE ERROR.

I browsed the legal documents on the website, but I couldn't find the jury instructions. The actual reading of the jury instructions was omitted from the transcript, but I am able to discern the essense of the instructions from the recorded discussions between the prosecuting attorney, the defense attorney, and the court, and from the closing arguments.

From the prosecuting attorney's closing argument, it is clear that Maye was charged with "capital murder." The jury was instructed on the lesser included offenses of "murder" and "manslaughter." However, since the jury convicted on the "capital murder" charge resulting in the death penalty, that's the charge we must analyze.

In his closing argument, the prosecuting attorney set forth the government's burden of proof as to the elements of the offense (paraphrased) as follows:

The state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant:

That the Defendant did willfully and unlawfully kill and murder Jones, a human being, without authority of law, while Jones was acting in his official capacity as a law enforcement officer, to wit: serving a search warrant as a police officer, and that the Defendant knew that the person he killed was a police officer, then the Defendant is guilty of capital murder.

When one parses the elements of the offense to discover the requisite mental state, conduct, and attendant circircumstances, etc., the essential element "without authority of law" stands out. That means the offense must be committed without legal justification or EXCUSE.

Justification or excuse are legal defenses.

Accordingly, in the State of Mississippi, the state has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt the NONEXISTENCE of a defense.

This case was erroneously framed and tried as a "justification" case. The jury was erroneously instructed that the state has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not justified in using deadly force in self-defense. In his closing statement, the prosecuting attorney argued (paraphrased):

If the Defendant did shoot and kill Jones, but it was in necessary self-defense, then he is not guilty. To be JUSTIFIABLE on the ground of self-defense, the danger to the Defendant must be either ACTUAL (a present and urgent danger) or the Defendant must have reasonable grounds to believe the victim (Jones) intended to kill the defendant or cause him great bodily harm. If there is no actual, urgent, and present danger, there is no self defense.

HOWEVER, this was NOT a justification/self-defense case. This justification defense would apply, for instance, if someone like TOOKIE WILLIAMS, a dangerous gang member had awoke Maye from a deep sleep at night by the sound of the door being kicked in. Under those circumstances, Maye would not only have a reasonable belief that he and his daughter were the victims of an unlawful home invasion, but his belief would be GENUINE. Under those hypothetical circumstances, no one could reasonably dispute the fact that Maye was confronted with an actual, urgent, and present danger and that he instantaneously reacted out of fear to defend himself and his daughter.

BUT, the circumstances of Maye's case were different. Maye might have reasonably believed that he and his daughter were the victims of a home invasion, but his belief was MISTAKEN. However, this case was tried as a justification (self-defense) case by both the prosecution and the defense. The jury was instructed that this was a justification (self-defense) case when it was NOT a justification (self-defense) case. This was an EXCUSE case. The jury never knew that Maye's MISTAKEN belief EXCUSED (not justified) his conduct and that he could not be held criminally liable for his MISTAKEN belief----BECAUSE, if the circumstances had been as he reasonably believed (from a subjective standard when one is standing in HIS shoes at the time with only seconds to react after hearing his door being kicked) he would have been justified. No one can dispute if Maye had shot someone like TOOKIE WILLIAMS rather than Officer Jones that Maye would have been justified.

But, again, the jury never got to hear that a subjectively reasonable (standing in the shoes of the defendant), but MISTAKEN belief is an absolute defense. The jury was instructed that Maye's belief had to be genuine--that Maye had to be facing an ACTUAL threat. The jury was instructed that the actual threat had to be an actual present and urgent threat. Well, police officers who enter a home to serve a search warrant, by a reasonably OBJECTIVE person standard, do not constitute a actual, present, and urgent threat to the defendant's life or his daughter's life.

And, the prejudicial effect of Maye being denied his defense of EXCUSE is apparent when one browses the transcript. In the closing argument, the prosecuting attorney hammered the fact that these officers did not constitute an actual threat as set forth in the justification (self-defense) instruction.

The state has the burden of proving each and every element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. In Mississippi, the state has the burden of proving the NONEXISTENCE of a defense. It was very easy for the state to prove the nonexistence of the defense of justification because it didn't even apply to the circumstances of the case. However, the jury was never instructed about the defense of EXCUSE which did apply to this case. The state was relieved of its constitutional mandate to prove the nonexistence of the defense of EXCUSE beyond a reasonable doubt.

This is not harmless error. This is highly prejudicial error and constitutes REVERSIBLE ERROR (entitling Maye to a new trial) because the error deprived Maye of his constitutional right to due process (guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment) in two respects:

1) The Prosecution was relieved of its onerous burden of proving all the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt including the nonexistence of the defense of EXCUSE; and

2) The Defendant was deprived of effective assistance of counsel because a reasonably competent defense attorney would understand the difference between a justification defense and an excuse defense and defense counsel's incompetence deprived the Defendant of the only valid defense that he had thus guaranteeing his conviction.

Thanks for the analysis, interesting.

Thanks so much Debra for giving us the benifit of your expertise.

I was hoping that someone would have given me some small glimmer of hope in this case.

The new trial begins on, I think, Monday (February 27th was mentioned as tentative but I don't know if it's definite). That seems like plenty of hope.

Actually that seems to be the hearing for whether there will be a new trial. Haven't found anything beyond "tentatively set."

It's no big mystery, Joe. I am aware of no such similar case. I'll happily add my signature to every petition against similar cases you can produce. (Btw; I'm also in favor of fining drivers for speeding… but think it's wrong do so in cases where the driver wasn't speeding.)

The defenses of justification or excuse exonerate a defendant from criminal liability for conduct that would otherwise be subject to criminal penalties.

The defense of justification (self-defense; defense of others) requires a REASONABLE and GENUINE belief that that one is facing imminent death or bodily injury.

The defense of excuse requires a REASONABLE but MISTAKEN belief that one is facing imminent death or bodily injury.

The reasonableness of the defendant's belief is measured from a subjective point of view. The jury must be instructed that they must stand in the shoes of the defendant and perceive the events as HE would perceive them.

Gleaning information from the sentencing hearing transcript, Maye knew that he lived in a dangerous, seedy, drug-infested neighborhood and the risk of being a victim of crime was high. Maye had even left the duplex apartment at one point and returned to his mother's house because he didn't want to live there, but his girlfriend begged him to come back. He had agreed to return and stay at least through Christmas for his daughter's sake, but he wanted his girlfriend and daughter to move back with him to his mother's house in his home town.

Maye's girlfriend worked nights. That particular night on the day after Christmas, he had put his one-year-old daughter to bed at about 8:00 p.m. and he fell asleep in the living room. About 10:30 p.m., he was awaken from a sound sleep (and he was a sound sleeper, according to his mother) by the sound of a crash at his front door. Someone was trying to kick in his front door, he was terrified and he ran to the bedroom where his daughter was sleeping, flicked on the light, grabbed his gun and quickly snapped in the ammunition clip, and threw himself down on the floor to take cover next to the bed where his daughter was sleeping.

In these few seconds, the intruder(s) had moved to the back door and with two powerful kicks to the back door, the door was broken open, the intruders rushed in, and terrified Maye fired shots through his open bedroom door. Immediately thereafter, he heard the intruders shout "police." Hearing that, he immediately put down his gun and slid it away from himself.

Maye had no motive or reason to shoot if he had known the home intruders were law enforcement officers. He was not a drug dealer; he did not have a stash of drugs in his home making him liable for years of incarceration; he had no criminal history whatsoever; he was not a wanted criminal trying to evade capture. From what I understand, the only thing in his home that could be deemed "criminal" was the ashen remains of the end of a marijuana cigarette that had already been smoked and the marijuana residue left inside an otherwise empty baggy. This minimal possession, first-time offense is trivial and would not motivate a person to shoot a police officer anymore than getting a parking ticket would motive a person to shoot a police officer. He had no motive, other than his fear of an intruder who just broke down his door, to shoot.

Immediately after the shooting and Maye heard the intruders identify themselves, he ceased from any further effort to repel the persons that he had mistakenly believed to be unlawful intruders. The police entered the bedroom and an officer kneeled down on top of him and placed him in handcuffs. According to Maye, the officers then proceeded to repeatedly kick and beat him. The officers claimed that he resisted arrest requiring them to use force and to explain the bruises and lumps on Maye's body. But, I find the officers' explanation to be less than credible given that Maye was already laying face-down, flat on the floor, and had immediately slid the gun away from himself as soon as the officers identified themselves in order to demonstrate that he did not mean to harm the officers and to surrender himself. More likely than not, the kicking and beating was the result of emotional and angry officers who were taking their wrath out on Maye because Maye had just shot one of their fellow officers.

But, if we stand in Maye's shoes and apply a subjective standard from his point of view in accordance with his knowledge that he lived in an unsafe neighborhood, and being awakened from a sound sleep upon hearing his door being kicked in, it is clear that he reasonably believed in those few short seconds that he and his daughter were in grave danger and he REACTED accordingly----even though his reasonable belief was MISTAKEN.

IMO, although Maye's conduct is not legally justified, it is legally excused.

There is a WORLD of difference in the presentation of a justification defense and an excuse defense. The jury was erroneously informed as to the applicable defense and they were instructed that the danger had to be an actual danger. However, the police officers did not constitute an actual danger to Maye because they were merely there to serve a warrant. The jury found that the state had proven the nonexistence of the JUSTIFICATION defense beyond a reasonable doubt and the jury found Maye guilty of capital murder because our law enforcement officers need to be safe when they're performing their official duties.

Again, however, this was not a JUSTIFICATION case; this was an EXCUSE case. The jury was never instructed that a defendant's reasonable, but MISTAKEN belief of danger was an absolute defense and that he was legally excused when he reacts based on that reasonable, but mistaken belief.

That's what I thought, Momma Angel.
So I've signed it.
I'll add the link to emails & some other forums I go to,
I hope it helps.

ANYBODY who kicks in my door is subject to a lead shower. Sorry Debra. No justification necessary.

Kehoe,

Thank you so much!

Debra,

I am so glad that you came to this thread and explained everything. I'm not good at all with reading legal doucments and understanding just what the heck they say. You sure made it very clear that this was something that can be reversed, at least in the sense that Cory can receive a new trial.

I hope and pray that whomever reviews this case sees it the way you do. Fedral, I think Debra just gave us all a whole lot of hope for Cory! I know I feel very hopeful for him!

Debra, may I ask, is it possible they can just overturn the verdict and Cory can go home with time served or it is a must that he goes through a new trial?

Thanx so much again!

that's a really sad story, so i've signed the petition

mans,

Bless you!

I'm too. But they should produce better phtos in such a case. (Just paid yesterday something like $65 plus $28 'expenses' for plus portage for a really terrible photo ... and got some points additionally as well ).

Anything is possible. Both the Governor and the President have the power of Pardon, which would immediately erase the entire incident from his record. This could be done before, during or after his conviction and/or sentence is or is not overturned.

Walter, that's too funny. Perhaps you should consider wearing a disguise when you're out being a menace to society. My BMW, before I wrecked it, was equipped with a state of the art laser jammer that only jammed the frequency the bogie was using so as not to be detected. Upon being targeted; the beep alerts you, you slow down to the speed limit and then switch it off and allow them to clock you going the speed limit. Worked like a charm for under $400 if memory serves. Same company also makes a radar version, but I can't testify to its effectiveness because I didn't part with the extra dough. I think that was more like $700 and I've had decent enough luck with the quick-brake method using less expensive detector technology. (apologies for the digression).

Bill, they unfortunately made a photo of my numberplate as well; anti-radar-radar etc is illegal here. (Sorry for the digression as well.)

Thanx Bill! We will hope for the best!

Bummer. I don't know how much of a rebel you are, or just how illegal they are; but if that's the case they probably feel no need to continuously upgrade their equipment. While in Chicago you could pick up a device not much bigger than a credit card that not only would alert you to radar miles away, but comes with a cloaking feature that automatically shuts itself off (and alerts you) if it detects a detector detector. One of these detector detector detectors can be had for a few hundred dollars as well. :wink:

Then I will simply say to you what I said to Momma Angel: you should have been paying attention.

Cases of Innocence - 1973 to present