Cory Maye: If the bullet angle don’t fit, we still won’t acquit

Radley Balko has more on the Cory Maye case. From his site:

Hayne said that the bullet in Jones’ abdomen was traveling in a downward trajectory, implying that the gun that fired that bullet would had to have been fairly high off the ground. Since Maye says he was lying on the floor when the door flew open and Jones came into the bedroom, the prosecution zeroed in on the bullet’s trajectory through Jones’ body, and implied to the jury that Maye wasn’t cowering in fear on the floor, but laying in wait, standing up behind the bed (they didn’t quite have an explanation as to why a guy laying in wait would kill just one cop, and then surrender).

[snip]

Put another way, we have a hole in the door frame at gut-level that’s clearly headed up. And we have a hole in a man a gut level that’s clearly headed down. The two bullets were fired within a fraction of a second. One of those two targets had to be in a position other than upright when Cory Maye fired his gun. Ask yourself, which of the two was more likely to have been crouched the night of the raid, Officer Jones, or the door frame?

If you’re wondering why Maye’s lawyer Rhonda Cooper didn’t bring this up at trial — well, so am I.

I’m becoming increasingly convinced of Maye’s absolute innocence in this case. Check out Balko’s entry for the rest of the story and photographs he took at the crime scene. Additionally, the media is not picking up this story. Google News only shows one mention of Maye at this time — which came from this site. Please help spread the word on the blogosphere. A man’s life is on the line and we seem to be the only ones who care.

posted Apr 25th, 2006 by Stephen Gordon

  • Pingback: Hammer of Truth

  • Pingback: Hammer of Truth

  • http://storming-jericho.blogspot.com/ Joshua

    Even before 9/11 most Americans (by no means just white Southerners) have tended to put officers of law enforcement on a pedestal. I suspect that what we’re seeing in the Cory Maye case is a general reluctance to accept the idea that killing a cop who’s acting in good faith in the line of duty can ever be justified under any circumstances. Since no one is disputing either Officer Jones’s good faith or Maye’s role in Jones’s death, no judge, juror or prosecutor with that mindset is likely to be swayed by even the most compelling evidence in Maye’s favor.

    At the very least this case should serve as an object lesson to criminal defense attorneys across the nation: In jury selection, be sure to identify those who are innately hostile to your line of defense, and screen them out.

  • Sandra Kallander

    I can’t promise to follow the judges’ instructions without committing provable perjury, with the result that I’m always thanked and excused from jury duty. How do we get libertarians like me on a jury?

    It has gotten to the point where ignorance of the law is an excellent excuse that everyone, including the judge, is entitled to use because there are too many laws. I tell the judge I’m going to vote for justice and fairness and common sense no matter what the law says, because I believe that’s my duty as a juror. He may be bound by the law to give certain instructions, but it’s not my job to follow them.

    It’s too bad I can’t get on a jury because that’s where your vote really does count.

  • vforvandyke

    Sandra: lie? I know that’s not a very postitive answer, but deception may be acceptable in certain circumstances where a corrupt system tries to push out justice.

  • Stephen Gordon

    Sandra,

    Unfortunately, Maye got people like this on his jury.

  • artusregister

    Many angles of this question will be covered on a soon-to-be launched site: www. hung-jury.org

  • http://mayeisinnocent.com Mike Hayes

    What has happened in the Maye case is inexcusable, because it is a case in which the DA and the prosecution appear to have twisted the physical evidence to support a theory of malevolent intent on the part of Maye. Balko has asked the question, why didn’t Rhonda Cooper (Maye’s attorney) bring up the issue of the upward trajectory of the bullet. Cooper did refute the assertions of Hayne and McDonald, but it seemed like no one listened or cared.

    The theory of malevolent intent was pushed all the way to a death sentence. This is different than many cases where the evidence or facts are actually in dispute.

    Mike H.

  • Pingback: Ameliorations