Post by Anja Nieser on Oct 1, 2006 6:41:22 GMT -5
New trial deserved in case of slain officer
Cory Maye's version of an incident 5 years ago sounds like a compelling
argument for the Castle Doctrine, the controversial law that gives
Mississippians broader authority to defend their homes and other property.
Maye said he was home with his 18-month-old daughter when he fell asleep
in a chair. He said he was awakened by what he believed were intruders
and, like most people, wanted to protect his home and his family. He
reached for a nearby handgun and shot Ron Jones as Jones entered Maye's
duplex.
Jones, as Maye now knows, was not a burglar. He was a Prentiss police
officer participating in a raid of Maye's apartment. Maye was convicted of
capital murder and sentenced to die by lethal injection.
The sentence was overturned last week in Pearl River County Circuit Court,
where a motion for a new trial is pending. While the Castle Doctrine,
which became effective July 1, isn't applicable in this case, the glaring
questions from Maye's trial suggest the scrutiny is appropriate.
TRAGIC INCIDENT
Jones' death was especially tragic, as is the case with any public servant
who makes the ultimate sacrifice in the continuous battle to make our
communities safe and drug free. Jones' service is appreciated and should
be remembered. There also should be some accountability.
The key question today is whether Maye received justice. Judge Michael
Eubanks, in overturning Maye's death sentence, ruled Maye received
inadequate representation during the sentencing phase of his 2004 trial.
His attorney from that trial has said otherwise.
Maye's new defense team, which includes lawyers from across the country,
also has argued that Rhonda Cooper, Maye's attorney, was ineffective
during the guilt phase. Cooper has raised some legitimate questions about
Eubanks' sentence, noting that the sentencing phase proceeded immediately
after the trial phase without adequate time to prepare. Other issues in
this case appear more basic, including whether Maye knew Jones was a
police officer.
Officers, after raiding the unit next door, said they announced themselves
at Maye's door and entered after hearing no answer. Maye testified that he
didn't hear the officers announce themselves.
NO CRIMINAL RECORD
Maye had no criminal record, and officers found only traces of one
marijuana cigarette inside the apartment. There also was testimony that
the front of the officers' clothing was not marked with any law
enforcement insignia.
Why would someone with no criminal history and with nothing to hide inside
his home do something that seems so out of character, like knowingly shoot
a police officer?
There also are questions about the validity of some information in the
warrant to search Maye's apartment. When coupled with other elements, this
doesn't sound like justice.
Yes. Maye fatally wounded a police officer. But in giving Maye the benefit
of the doubt about the officers' identities, a capital murder conviction
and death penalty sounds extreme.
What's clear is Maye deserves a new trial and a fresh look at the
evidence.
His life is at stake. And like everyone else, he is entitled to justice.
(source: Clarion Ledger)
Cory Maye's version of an incident 5 years ago sounds like a compelling
argument for the Castle Doctrine, the controversial law that gives
Mississippians broader authority to defend their homes and other property.
Maye said he was home with his 18-month-old daughter when he fell asleep
in a chair. He said he was awakened by what he believed were intruders
and, like most people, wanted to protect his home and his family. He
reached for a nearby handgun and shot Ron Jones as Jones entered Maye's
duplex.
Jones, as Maye now knows, was not a burglar. He was a Prentiss police
officer participating in a raid of Maye's apartment. Maye was convicted of
capital murder and sentenced to die by lethal injection.
The sentence was overturned last week in Pearl River County Circuit Court,
where a motion for a new trial is pending. While the Castle Doctrine,
which became effective July 1, isn't applicable in this case, the glaring
questions from Maye's trial suggest the scrutiny is appropriate.
TRAGIC INCIDENT
Jones' death was especially tragic, as is the case with any public servant
who makes the ultimate sacrifice in the continuous battle to make our
communities safe and drug free. Jones' service is appreciated and should
be remembered. There also should be some accountability.
The key question today is whether Maye received justice. Judge Michael
Eubanks, in overturning Maye's death sentence, ruled Maye received
inadequate representation during the sentencing phase of his 2004 trial.
His attorney from that trial has said otherwise.
Maye's new defense team, which includes lawyers from across the country,
also has argued that Rhonda Cooper, Maye's attorney, was ineffective
during the guilt phase. Cooper has raised some legitimate questions about
Eubanks' sentence, noting that the sentencing phase proceeded immediately
after the trial phase without adequate time to prepare. Other issues in
this case appear more basic, including whether Maye knew Jones was a
police officer.
Officers, after raiding the unit next door, said they announced themselves
at Maye's door and entered after hearing no answer. Maye testified that he
didn't hear the officers announce themselves.
NO CRIMINAL RECORD
Maye had no criminal record, and officers found only traces of one
marijuana cigarette inside the apartment. There also was testimony that
the front of the officers' clothing was not marked with any law
enforcement insignia.
Why would someone with no criminal history and with nothing to hide inside
his home do something that seems so out of character, like knowingly shoot
a police officer?
There also are questions about the validity of some information in the
warrant to search Maye's apartment. When coupled with other elements, this
doesn't sound like justice.
Yes. Maye fatally wounded a police officer. But in giving Maye the benefit
of the doubt about the officers' identities, a capital murder conviction
and death penalty sounds extreme.
What's clear is Maye deserves a new trial and a fresh look at the
evidence.
His life is at stake. And like everyone else, he is entitled to justice.
(source: Clarion Ledger)