I read all of the attachments, and while I practice civil litigation rather than criminal litigation, I can see how a jury could find the defendant guilty if the testimony that went to the jury was in line with the results of your interview with the prosecutor.

Considering the potential ineffective assistance of counsel (again, a conclusion based on the post), it is possible that Mr. Maye's attorney's version of the case and conversations with the two jurors (I assume she didn't poll the jury after the verdict was in?) are perhaps slanted to place the blame on someone other than herself.

With all due respect to Mr. Maye, I don't know too many people who sleep with a loaded gun in their bedroom, especially if they have a very young child living in the house.

And, if you think about it, how many people will grab a loaded gun (presumably from some location where a child won't be able to get to it, also presumably release the safety), and fire at someone entering their home, instead of calling 911? (And I also read your post on Maye, self-defense and paramilitary drug raids).

It will be interesting to see the trial transcripts as well as the evidentiary rulings (if any) about what could and could not go to the jury.

It seems to me that the outrage is contingent on Mr. Maye's ability to identify the intruding police.

I am somewhat dubious that he would be able to fail to determine that it was in fact the police who were entering the house, and not some large gang of armour-clad ruffians.

Certainly, if it is the case that he really did know who was entering and he shot, then this outcome is just. Only Mr. Mayes knows for sure.

I can't see how the jury got past "reasonable doubt." I can see that if they took the position most favorable to the prosecution and least favorable to the defense, they could have concluded Maye was probably guilty. But that isn't the standard.

I might have a different view of this case if it were a civil matter. I might still disagree with a finding of responsbility, but I could at least relate to a "preponderance" view. Not, however, to "beyond a reasonable doubt."

In the southern and border states, many people keep loaded guns, even in households where there are children. The wisdom of the latter action can be questioned but it simply isn't unusual enough for such homes to exist for that to be a significant factor in the case, in my opinion.