Radley Balko | June 16, 2007
Last word on the Cory Maye case came late last summer, when the trial judge threw out Maye's death sentence due to ineffective assistance of counsel, and ordered a new sentencing trial. I heard from Cory's defense team earlier tonight that the DA's office has now said it will no longer pursue the death penalty.
That means Cory will now start his appeals process with the death penalty off the table. That's good news. But he'll still likely be re-sentenced to life in prison. So it's not great news.
My original reason report on Maye here .
Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
Absolutely ourageous. This poor man will spend the rest of his
life in prison for defending his home.
But he\'s been already convicted. Anyone know the legal process on
this? Does he have a chance of getting a new trial and having the
sentence reversed?
This isn't good news. Well, kind of.
Now that he isn't going to get executed, his chances on appeal just
dropped immensely.
He will probably spend the rest of his life in jail now.
What kind of shit bag prosecutes this man?
What kind of worthless retarded jury convicts in such a case? What
kind of worthless America hating communists convict a man for
defending his own home?
God this angers me. I would like to meet one of the jurors.
It's good that the death penalty is off the table, but unfortunately this will likely do away with whatever urgency or "push" there was to see his release anytime in the near future.
Despite the difficult prospects for further progress, kudos to
Radley Balko for his reporting on this!
Besides, where there is life there is hope. At least the state no
longer has the option of killing Cory Maye to try to make the whole
matter go away.
thoreau: Not only kudos to Radley for reporting this story, I
think we can, in large part, credit his work with Cory Maye's
removal from death row.
Radley: keep shining that light, brother!
Kwais
What kind of worthless retarded jury convicts in such a case? What
kind of worthless America hating communists convict a man for
defending his own home?
The twelve white jurors in the case convicting a black man in the
Southern US with questionable evidence (its not that surprising in
Deliverance country is it).
What kind of shit bag prosecutes this man?
The prosecutor from the down who is probably friends with the
sheriff who's son was shot while breaking into Maye's house
Radley has done a phenomenal job of bringing this case to the
public.
As to the shitbag prosecutor? In this case it is more critical
because a man's life is at stake, but it happens all the time on
every level of the judicial system, civil and criminal. It isn't
limited to Deliverance Country, it's just as bad or worse in
upscale, forward thinking, progressive, suburbia as it is in the
cities or the deep south.
The judicial system in this country is only loosely connected to
the concept of meaningful justice.
Just for the record, there were ten white men and two black
women on the jury.
See my interview with one of the black women here.
See my interview with one of the black women
here.
Wow. Just wow. Everyone go read this.
That she even made it onto the jury, I think, is yet another
data point in support of the argument that Rhonda Cooper provided
no real representation for Cory Maye at all.
I'd add that a chemically impared person on a jury also indicates
that the judge failed as well.
On second thought, maybe Cory Maye should be convicted for drug smuggling (I oppose drug prohibition but believe the law must be enforced).
I think it's very important that you posted what that juror said. It's absolutely insane. *shakes head*
thoreau
There seems to be some wrecker going through posting as regulars or
semi-regulars whom he disagrees with at that time. He, and I'm
pretty confident that it's a he, posted on several threads about
that time.
It's always a shame to see someone who is obviously unarmed try to
start a battle of wits.
I hope people don't forget about him just because he has been "spared" death. I think I might try the penpal thing.
I just read the interview of the juror lady. I wonder, wouldn't
that alone be grounds for an appeal?
Two reasons:
- Miss representation. His lawyer was incompetent.
- Miss representation, the Judge was incompetent for letting the
juror serve.
It's always a shame to see someone who is obviously unarmed
try to start a battle of wits.
tarran wins the thread.
If we adopt the position that personal autonomy is a matter of one having ownership over himself, does that mean that one has a right to sell himself into slavery?
Radley,
Your reporting is getting better every day. You really are at the
forefront (maybe the #1 journalist now) of where libertarians
should (IMHO) be concentrating their efforts. Keep it up friend;
you are making waves.
How can we defend enforcement of good laws if we don't also
defend the enforcement of the bad laws?
More importantly, if we are to maintain a working system of
government, then there must be some DESIGNATED group or individual
who makes the laws; who should it be and who makes that
decision?
Who the hell is impersonating me? And I'm pretty sure that second post by kwais was an impostor as well.
I meant the third post by kwais. The one with the n-word. That's out of character for him, even as sarcasm.
And a similarly vile comment has appeared on Unqualified
Offerings by somebody claiming to be kwais. The IP address is
almost certainly not kwais's.
I've contacted the Hit and Run webmasters.
Any conclusions one forms from logic must ultimately be based on
faith because a premise may be evaluated through either of the
following means:
• The conclusion is based on the premise, which must be validated
by validating the premise upon which it is based ad
infinitum.
o This is the ideal approach except that we can not perform this
analysis since it requires an infinite amount of thought.
• The premise is the conclusion (i.e., an example of circular
logic).
o This proves nothing since one cannot use a premise to prove
itself.
o This approach is not any better than assuming the premise is
true.
• The premise is true for no reason.
o This proves nothing because we simply assume the premise is
true.
Clearly, only the first approach can prove the premise except that
its use is beyond human comprehension, whereas the other two
approaches prove nothing.
If one has ownership over himself, then one has the right to sell himself into slavery ,much like one has the right to sell his land to someone else.
I clicked on the link of the name of my impostor, to see if I got any clues who it was, and 39 pages opened up, all going nowhere.
Glad to see that Mr. Balko has started policing his threads for impostors. About time.
At least no one wants to be me.
Here's hoping things continue to go Cory's way.
Radley,
You deserve to go to heaven.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245