Cory Maye Story Hits Fox News

In case you missed it like I did, Radley Balko’s article on Cory Maye is now up at Fox News. The article provide a good overview of the case, and contains a few new pieces of information for those of you not following the story as it unfolds. I’ll provide a brief segment which provided information not well covered on this site:

But it gets worse. For the last 10 years, Bob Evans has been public defender for the town of Prentiss. Late last year, Evans says he was warned by town officials not to represent Cory Maye in his appeal. Evans ignored the threats, and gave Maye representation. In January of this year, Prentiss made good on its promise, and fired Evans.

According to Evans, Prentiss Mayor Charlie Dumas told him point blank that he was terminated for representing Cory Maye. In a phone interview, Mayor Dumas confirmed having a conversation with Evans, but declined to go into specifics. Calls to the town’s aldermen weren’t returned, or were answered with “no comment.”

If Evans version of events are true, the firing of Evans stinks. It’s the kind of thing public officials do when they have something to hide. And it only adds to the already obvious notion that the town of Prentiss doesn’t much care about giving Cory Maye a fair shake at justice.

Fortunately, Orin Kerr of the Volokh Conspiracy is jumping on board. From Balko’s blog:

Orin Kerr Joins Cory Maye’s Legal Team

And that’s terrific news.

Kerr’s a highly regarded legal scholar, professor at the George Washington University School of Law, and a blogger at the Volokh Conspiracy.

That Kerr’s lending his expertise to Cory’s case I think speaks volumes about how his cause is cutting across ideological lines. I don’t think Kerr would object to being called a consistent but thoughtful law-and-order conservative.

And Abe Pafford, the associate who first brought the case to the attention of the partners at Covington and Burling, went to Liberty University (founded by Jerry Falwell), and first learned of the case courtesy of this post by Jonathan Adler at National Review Online.

On the other end of the spectrum, last week I met with the folks at the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty. They say Cory’s case is drawing attention among leftist groups, too, including the ACLU, Amnesty, and the NAACP.

The group I’d most like to hear from is the NRA. Seems to me this would be a gut-check case for them.

This is obviously good news. Like Balko, I’m curious about the silence from the National Rifle Association on this issue. They are either truly interested in the rights of gun owners or the accusations from the left about them being racist GOP sycophants are indeed correct.

If you haven’t done so already, don’t forget to sign the petition or contribute to the legal fund.

22 Comments
  1. The NRA is Republican Sycophant. Why is there any question of that? And they are anti-gun.

    Just one example: Recently, the GOP passed the gun industry immunity bill. The Bill shielded gun MANUFACTURERS from lawsuits pertaining to their being “involved” in gun crimes committed with guns that they manufactured. Not necessarily a bad thing, but the bill contained blatant gun control in the form of gun lock provisions – that gun locks be included in pistol purchases. This means that while some burden has been removed from industry, a new burden (a tax) has been levied upon gun owners. The NRA and dumb conservatives (a redundancy) hailed it as a great victory (of course)! The NRA totally ignored and did not mention the lock provision. Wait until those locks are required at all times! It will be illegal to EVER remove them. And the NRA will go along with it like they do with various other measures. The GOP is VERY anti-gun. But they are sneaky.

  2. fantastic to see the msm FINALLY picking up this story… how long has this been circulating around the internet now? something of a disgrace it hasn’t gotten attention before now, but i never thought i’d have a reason to salute fox news…

  3. Corey’s story wasn’t nearly as juicy and sensationalist as Tookie Williams’… hmm… he’s lower income black he is obviously guilty!

    tookie… corey… tookie… cory…. williams… maye…

    Anyone who has not had a recent bought with law enforcment… let me shed a little light… you are ‘guilty until proven innocent’!

    Whatever is in the report is taken at a higher value (because the law enforcement official is a respected member of society) and it is up to you to prove your innocence!

    This is not how it is supposed to be… but there it is. How many have gone to jail because of public pretenders and sub-society status…. hmmm?

  4. Part of my orginal carefully edited comment was about how in addition to the racial aspect, the whole drug issue and unconditional reverence of law enforcement also clouds the judgment of some who may claim to support gun and property rights. People hate the drugs so much and love the cops so much. For example if you read the comment emails in response to Balko’s column things are said like ” If he wasn’t a drug addict I might feel more for him, But an addict in possession of dope sounds like the police were right. Burn him.” AND “Why do you think that Corey should get a lighter punishment? He killed a police officer! The penalty for such a despicable action should be the death penalty. If criminals are to be kept in line it must be by fear.”
    A lot of “conservative gun rights advocates” would have no problem with an old white guy shooting an unarmed black trespasser, but do not see it the same way for a black man who may have smoked pot shooting a white police intruder.

  5. Graham – it was not manually edited – as soon as Van Dyke gets back, I’ll have him look at the spam controls to see what happened.

  6. Graham’s comment was:

    1. As far as the NRA, “conservatives”, and race.. I can’t help but think that if Maye were white, we would be hearing a lot more (or at least some)outrage from white conservative gun/property rights advocates* Especially if it had been a white shooter and black “intruder”, IMO.
    2. In addition to race, You also have to take into account both the “drug” and “cop” elements. A lot of people who may claim to support certain rights support the drug war at all costs, believe cops are always right and killing one for any reason is capital murder, think gun rights are for white male property owners and are not comfortable with toting, tokin’ black men,etc.
    3.* Though a lot of the support has come from the “right” and we Libertarians are often lumped in with the conservative right. I have seen so called conservative blogs/forums where Maye is mentioned and the general response is “get out of here you commie liberal so and so”

  7. http://www.keepandbeararms.com/

    jpfo.org is my favorite, and not just because I’m of mostly Jewish ancestry – most of their members are actually not Jews, from what I’ve read.

    Regarding the spam filter, Andy J. and I have had a lot of problems with it here. I emailed VanDyke about it and had not heard back as yet – I believe it was Fri.

  8. I missed the point in my last comment – the LP.org blog’s filter does. Plus that, the LP.org blog sucks, but there you go.

    I’m amazed that people are so thoroughly convinced that drugs should be illegal. I just don’t see how people can be so entrenched in that view with no apparent logical backing.

  9. Nigel; I support the legalization of drugs. However, I will point out that anyone who makes a trip to Amsterdam would have a hard time truly supporting that the “harder” drugs should also be, without some other ethical structure in place. The “legal zones” for that can at times be human wastelands. (Haven’t been there myself but have spoken with about 3 people whom have.)

    Me, I truly believe that self-responsibility needs to be the governing factor. I recall someone bringing up fiction in the past — to that end I suggest L.E. Modessitt Jr.’s “Gravity Dreams” as the entire text seems to be an allegory for self-responsibility and the impact it has on society. (It’s a far-future “soft” sci-fi with hard overtones.)

  10. Agreed. One of the things that would go a long way towards abating people’s fears about drug-users, and possibly reduce the “need” for mandatory term limits would be the elimination of “temporary insanity” defences from the usage of drugs. I.e.; “I couldn’t possibly have had intent since I was drugged out of my mind at the time I killed him, your honor.”

    If you do something knowing that it will put you totally out of control, then you are responsible for the results of your actions. I know I’m preaching to the choir here though.

  11. NW – I’ll quit posting at the LP blog, then. :)

    Oops, I forgot, it is been some time since I did.

%d bloggers like this: