Via email, McDonald writes about the search warrants:

The warrants are probably in the evidence exhibits to the trial and not in the general file which contains indictments and other pleadings but normally not the evidence that was introduced. They were introduced at the suppression hearing on the search as exhibits 1 and 2, this is on page 7 of the transcript of the trial during the suppression hearing and the originals were identified by Judge Kruger the City Judge at the hearing. If they make you copies of exhibit 1 and 2 to the suppression hearing you will see them. The warrant for one apartment was for an apartment occupied by “Jamie Smith/and or persons unknown” I believe. In the warrant for the apartment Maye was in it is stated, I believe that the apartment was occupied by “person or persons unknown”. If the name of the occupant is known to the informant the warrant is issued like that some times. Many times when informants deal with people they do not get their real or any names at all.

If this is true, then I think we have a real problem. If Maye isn’t specifically named in the warrant, and the specific information Jones used to get a warrant for Maye’s home “died with Jones,” we’ll never know exactly why police broke down Maye’s door that night. If the warrant is for “persons unknown,” and not for Maye, the only two real possibilities are that (a) the warrant included Maye’s residence only because it was adjacent to Smith’s, or (b) Maye was the target of the investigation all along, but the informant didn’t know Maye’s identity, only where he lived.

The latter seems improbable, given that Maye had no prior criminal record, and no drugs were found in his apartment. The problem is, we’ll never know, because apparently, all record of the investigative work Jones did prior to obtaining the warrant “died with him.”

Back to McDonald’s email:

As to why I he would not open, I can not say. The door to the other apartment was only a few feet from his front door. They heard the announcement from the team that went there and those people opened up. A witness testified a light went on in the front room of the apartment that the front door went into. When the shooting occurred may was in a back bedroom. Maye was the only person in the apartment other than the child.

I’m not sure the fact that the light went on is all that relevant. What’s relevant is whether or not police properly announced themselves and, given the time of night the raid was conducted, whether or not Maye should have reasonably assumed them to be police. According to the Hattiesburg American, Maye testified that upon hearing the banging on his front door, he became frightened, and went to the bedroom to get and load his gun. It’s not unreasonable to think that this is when he might have turned on the light. It’s here that police broke down the back door, and Jones stormed Maye’s apartment. Maye’s testimony is that the narcotics task force yelled “police” only after forcing the door open, and he’d already shot Jones. At that point, he dropped his gun and raised his hands.

As to why no drugs were found in Maye’s apartment, and why a man with no criminal record would engage in a shootout with police instead of simply letting them in, McDonald answers:

Time elapsed from the time they announced at the front door and the time they gained entry in the back. Things get flushed some times. We do not know what else he might have to hide, (what he might have done he knew of and the police did not know of]) he may have thought they were there on to something else concerning him. Just to be frank some times people do irrational things.

Well, that last sentence is certainly true, though probably not in the way McDonald intended. What’s troubling here is the level of suspicion McDonald thrusts onto Maye, despite the fact that, at risk of repeating myself, (a) Maye had no crminal record, (b) no drugs were found in Maye’s apartment, (c) there’s every reason to believe that Maye wasn’t even the original target of the warrant.

McDonald goes on:

The flip side of the issue is why would the officers not announce and take a chance on getting shot?

Probably for the same reasons that cops carry out no-knock raids all over the country — about 40,000 per year, by some estimates. No-knocks are usually justified on the flawed premise that it’s safer to barge into someone’s home at 3am with high-powered weaponry than it is to apprehend them as they’re coming or leaving the house. For reasons that escape me, politicians, district attorneys, and police chiefs all over America are sold on the idea. I think they’re pretty obviously mistaken, and the littany of botched raids and dozens of people — cops and civilians — who have fallen victim to them is good evidence that I’m right. But I guess, just to be frank, sometimes people do irrational things.

You can get and read the transcript. It the facts and issues are discussed there.

I only contacted you to let you know where you could get the transcript as you seemed interested in the case. That way you do not have to rely on what I say or on what the defense attorney says you can read it for yourself. It is about 540 pages would not take you too long.

I plan to.

This entry was posted on Monday, December 12th, 2005 at 8:09 am by Radley Balko and is filed under Cory Maye. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.