Repository Collection 03

State v. Lyle Clinton May Motion for Appropriate Relief

COURT FILING ENTRY

Last Revised • July 10, 2026

This Source Verification Page documents the Defendant's original Motion for Appropriate Relief, specifically Claim II, cited in the Supplemental Motion. The filing is referenced to demonstrate that allegations concerning Darrell Godfrey's credibility, criminal history, and prosecutorial misconduct were originally presented in the Defendant's post-conviction proceedings.


Related SMAR Citation

“[see State v. Lyle Clinton May Motion for Appropriate Relief, Claim II, pgs 90-97; March 6, 2003]”


Document Name

State v. Lyle Clinton May Motion for Appropriate Relief


Claim

Claim II


Date

March 6, 2003


Verification Source

Referenced in the Supplemental Motion for Appropriate Relief. Original filing maintained by Defendant's post-conviction counsel.


Source Location

Defendant's Motion for Appropriate Relief


Referenced in the Supplemental Motion

Page 57, Paragraph: 119


Source Status

✔ Motion for Appropriate Relief is referenced within the Supplemental Motion

X Relevant passages highlighted.

X Publicly available source

X Included within the Source Verification Archive


Cited to Support

May's allegation that prosecutors misled the jury regarding Darrell Godfrey's status and potential criminal exposure by creating the impression that Godfrey faced prosecution for the murders rather than serving as a cooperating witness charged only with accessory-after-the-fact offenses; that this issue was previously raised in Claim II of the Defendant's original Motion for Appropriate Relief; and that the original claim alleged prosecutorial misconduct deprived the Defendant of a fair trial. May further alleges that Judge Dennis Winner's denial of Claim II as harmless error occurred without consideration of the additional evidence and allegations presented in the Supplemental MAR. May cites the original MAR to support his request that the Court revisit and reconsider Claim II in light of the cumulative evidence now presented.


Supporting Documents

Original Motion for Appropriate Relief

The original Motion for Appropriate Relief is referenced within the Supplemental Motion but was not independently reviewed for inclusion within the Source Verification Archive. The original filing is maintained by Defendant's post-conviction counsel.


Continue Your Research

Return to Claim II

Continue browsing the sources cited throughout Claim II.

Browse Sources →

Return to Source Verification Archive

Return to the main Source Verification Archive and explore additional sections of the Supplemental Motion.

Browse Archive →