</s>44-HQ-38861 E5878 LOSURE 88 8811-5878-5-878-1-8-818-0 ATTENTION BEFORE CHANGING CLASSIFICATION OR PROCESSING ANY DOCUMENT FROM THIS FILE FOR RELEASE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC, CONTACT FOI/PA SECTION UNIT D, EXT. 5767. COPIED FOR PAPA FOI /PA SECTION Unit D, EXIT. 56767. MAY 19 1877 BY Rafi F/B/D/O/ COPED FOR PAPI COPYED FOR COPIED COUPIED CUPIED BANK OF AUSTRALIA COPIES FOR PAPE F/A/P/A Section Unit D. EXT. 5767. COPIEED FOR PA COPIDED FOR 2013 RELEASE UNDER E.O. 91718

Summary  
This document contains legal petitions and allegations related to James Earl May’s conviction for the murder of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., including claims of due process violations, ineffective counsel, and procedural irregularities during extradition, trial, and sentencing. May alleges denial of access to exculpatory evidence, coercive plea negotiations, and judicial misconduct by Honorable Preston Battle. The petition references attorneys Arthur Hanes, William Bradford Jude, and Percy Foreman, who are accused of prioritizing financial interests over May’s defense. A separate legal petition from an unspecified petitioner claims coercion by attorney Perry Foreman into a guilty plea for a crime they did not commit, with allegations of psychological harm from prison conditions. The text also references James Earl Ray as a suspect in MLK’s assassination and mentions conspiracy theories involving William Bradford Huie’s publications. Other summaries include fragmented entries with names like William Bradford Hute, James Faul Ray, and locations such as Memphis, Texas, and St. Louis, though these lack direct connection to the MLK assassination investigation. One summary contains disjointed statements with no coherent narrative or factual information about the subject matter.  

Key People  
- James Earl May (convicted of Dr. King’s murder, petitioner alleging due process violations)  
- Arthur Hanes (attorney involved in extradition and representation)  
- William Bradford Jude (attorney associated with May’s case)  
- Percy Foreman (attorney who negotiated May’s plea deal; also referenced as coercing an unspecified petitioner)  
- Honorable Preston Battle (trial judge cited for judicial misconduct)  
- James Earl Ray (suspect in MLK assassination, mentioned in legal petitions and conspiracy theories)  
- William Bradford Huie (author of publications on MLK assassination)  
- Perry Foreman (attorney accused of coercion in unspecified case)  
- Mrs. King and Reverend Abernethy (mentioned as opposing May’s plea deal)  

Key Locations  
- Shelby County, Tennessee (location of trial and sentencing for James Earl May)  
- London, England (extradition proceedings for May)  
- Atlanta, Georgia (May’s rented premises subject to FBI search)  
- Nashville, Tennessee (State Penitentiary where May was initially held)  
- Memphis, Tennessee (prison and court locations referenced in unspecified petitioner’s case)  
- Texas, St. Louis, Montreal, Canada, Chicago, Sheffield, United States (locations mentioned in fragmented entries)  

Key Events  
- Extradition of James Earl May from London to the U.S. under Anglo-American treaty  
- Trial of May for Dr. King’s murder in Shelby County, Tennessee  
- Plea deal leading to 99-year sentence for May, contested as coerced  
- Allegations of due process violations, including denial of exculpatory evidence and prejudicial pretrial publicity  
- Legal disputes over attorney conflicts of interest and financial incentives overriding defense  
- Petitioner’s claim of coercion into guilty plea by Perry Foreman, with allegations of psychological harm from prison conditions  
- References to conspiracy theories involving James Earl Ray and MLK’s assassination  
- Fragmented mentions of declassified documents and administrative processes  

Key Organizations  
- Shelby County Criminal Court (venue for May’s trial)  
- U.S. Department of Justice (involved in approving plea deals)  
- FBI (conducted search of May’s premises in Atlanta, Georgia)  
- Tennessee State Penitentiary (where May was incarcerated)  
- Tennessee courts (implied through legal proceedings and judicial references)  
- Scotland Yard (mentioned in fragmented entries as an unspecified entity)  
- Legal associations or bar organizations (implied via attorney conduct allegations)

MLK Declassified Files

44-hq-38861_hs1-233652821_26-04-part_1_of_2.pdf

Document Summary

Try AI Search