by Dave Lindorff
Published: May 23, 2007
When the name Mumia Abu-Jamal comes up in local conversation, the debate immediately begins over whether he is guilty of a murder that has kept him on Pennsylvania's death row for 25 years. Rarely does it address the underlying question of whether he had a fair trial or appeal process.
Now, three 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judges are mulling key elements that pertain to that very crucial question. They are also considering whether to uphold a 2001 decision by Federal District Judge William Yohn that overturned Abu-Jamal's death sentence for the Dec. 9, 1981, murder of Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner.
The key claim argued before the three-judge panel during a two-and-a-half-hour hearing last Thursday (May 17) in the packed Ceremonial Courtroom of the federal courthouse was whether the prosecutor at the 1982 trial, Joseph McGill, improperly removed potential qualified jurors because of race.
In 1995, the District Attorney's office admitted that McGill used 10 of 15 peremptory challenges requests to strike jurors from consideration, for which no reason has to be given to remove black jurors who otherwise met the requirements to be on the panel, including a willingness to vote for death. This means that, of 14 possible qualified African-American jurors, McGill eliminated 10. That compares to only five white jurors that he peremptorily dismissed out of a possible 25. And it left Abu-Jamal's jury with nine whites and three blacks in a city that was 44 percent black (the gap widened when a black juror was removed by the judge and replaced by a white alternate, with the enthusiastic endorsement of McGill).
On its face, that would seem to be prima facie evidence of racial discrimination that would normally warrant a hearing, but there is more: Over the course of six murder trials that he tried, McGill used his peremptory challenges to remove 74 percent of qualified black jurors, compared to only 25 percent of white jurors. Moreover, McGill's methods were part of a pattern prevailing during the two terms of McGill's boss, then D.A. Ed Rendell. Under Rendell, prosecutors barred 58 percent of all blacks via peremptory challenges, compared to just 22 percent of whites.
Abu-Jamal's lead attorney, Robert R. Bryan, cited these statistics and noted that during jury questioning, McGill asked different questions of blacks than whites, and used different standards in deciding whom to remove.
Rather than contest the statistics and other evidence of racial discrimination in jury selection, Hugh Burns the head of the DA's appeals unit, he argued the state's case against Abu-Jamal claimed that Abu-Jamal had no right to raise the issue in federal court. Burns alleged that Abu-Jamal had missed his chance to do so in 1995, during his Post-Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) hearing, or subsequent appeal to the state supreme court.
The problem with the DA's argument? Much evidence of race-based jury selection did not come to light until 1998, a year after Abu-Jamal's final appeal had been decided. Since Abu-Jamal couldn't have had that evidence until his state appeal was over, it was first presented in his federal habeas appeal in 1999.
A second line of appeal by Abu-Jamal, briefly discussed at last week's hearing, was a statement made by McGill during his summation on the last day of the trial; he told jurors that if they had doubts about the defendant's guilt, they needn't worry, because, "If you find the defendant guilty of course there would be appeal after appeal and perhaps there could be a reversal of the case, or whatever, so that may not be final." (Juries are supposed to reach a guilty verdict only if the case was proven "beyond a reasonable doubt.") This was no slip by McGill, who used identical language in another case, which is why the state Supreme Court, in 1986, overturned that defendant's death sentence.
Now, Abu-Jamal is asking the appeals court to overturn his conviction on the same grounds. He seemed to have won some support from at least one judge, Robert Cowen.
When prosecutor Burns argued that McGill's statement could justify only overturning a sentence, not conviction, Cowen asked, "But isn't what the prosecutor said a denial of [the defendant's] right to a fair trial?"
There were many problems with Abu-Jamal's trial, his lawyers and supporters maintain. He was provided with almost no funds for ballistics or forensic experts. Records of interrogations show that prosecution witnesses were pressured by police over the course of six months to alter their testimony to comport with the prosecution's crime scenario. For example, white taxi driver Robert Chobert, who originally told police the shooter had fled the scene, later graphically described seeing Abu-Jamal do the shooting, execution-style. Chobert was uniquely vulnerable to pressure from prosecutors he had been driving on a license that had been suspended for a DWI conviction, and was also on five-years' probation for felony arson in the fire-bombing of an elementary school for money. Neither this information nor the fact that he had asked the DA to help him "fix" his license was allowed to go to the jury.
The point is that when people develop opinions about this controversial case, particularly in Philadelphia, they tend to base them on the fact of Abu-Jamal's conviction, and then, working on the assumption that the jury accepted the facts as presented at trial to be true, go on to proclaim him guilty of Faulkner's murder.
What if the conviction itself, however, was the result of a pre-selection of jurors inclined to believe the prosecutor, think Judge Albert Sabo was fair and believe police officers and prosecution witnesses? And if, moreover, those jurors were allowed to be assured by the prosecutor that the standard for conviction needn't be "proof beyond a reasonable doubt," then what certainty is there about any of the "facts" presented at the trial, or about the verdict?
This is why the appeal now being considered by the three judges of the 3rd Circuit Chief Judge Anthony Scirica, Judge Cowen and Judge Thomas Ambro is critical. If justice and the hallowed constitutional right to a fair trial are to have any real meaning in the United States, it is essential that juries be chosen in a manner that is fair, not stacked, and it is essential that if the resulting jury convicts especially in a capital case it be on the basis of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."
As the arguments presented at the 3rd Circuit hearing made clear, there are solid reasons to doubt that either of those things happened in Abu-Jamal's case. Philadelphians need to be prepared to accept that if at least two judges on the appeals court panel reach that conclusion, there will be no way to convincingly argue that Abu-Jamal "did it," until the evidence is presented fairly at a new trial.
(editorial@citypaper.net)
Dave Lindorff, a Philadelphia-area investigative journalist and columnist, is author of Killing Time: An Investigation into the Death Penalty Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal (Common Courage Press, 2004).
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Solidarity for Mumia in 6 U.S. cities, 8 countries
Published May 24, 2007 12:14 AM
In at least five U.S. cities outside Philadelphia and at least eight other countries demonstrations in solidarity with Mumia Abu-Jamal took place aimed at bringing attention to the latest court hearing May 17 and winning the political prisoner a new trial on the way toward freeing him.
In Ankara, Turkey’s capital and Istanbul, its biggest city, activists protested against the United States for imprisoning Mumia unfairly for 25 years. The group included academics, journalists, human rights activists and also correspondents of the daily Evrensel in front of the U.S. Embassy in Ankara and the Central Post office in Istanbul. They delivered a petition to the U.S. Embassy demanding a fair trial for Mumia Abu-Jamal.
The Cleveland Lucasville Five Defense Committee demonstrated during rush hour downtown. Signs called for the freedom of Abu-Jamal and the Lucasville Five, innocent men who face execution in Ohio in relation to the 1993 Lucasville prison uprising, and demanded “Justice for Aaron Steele.” Steele, a 23-year old African-American bus mechanic, died May 8 after being shot multiple times by Cleveland police. Passersby grabbed hundreds of newsletters on Mumia’s case. Other Mumia supporters had held a protest during the morning rush hour.
Members of the San Diego International Action Center and the San Diego Mumia Coalition gathered at a busy community intersection and distributed newsletters and other material on Mumia’s case to workers on their way home from work in the evening commute. Several motorists pulled over to get more details on Mumia’s struggle. Poet Jim Moreno read his Ode to Mumia for the assembled activists.
Organized in only one week, a broad-base of labor and community activists joined to support a May 17 press conference and protest in Milwaukee demanding a new trial for political prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal.
Speakers from Africans on the Move, AFSCME Local 82, Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), International Action Center-Milwaukee, the National Lawyers Guild, Pan African Revolutionary Socialist Party, Peace Action-Wisconsin and the Wisconsin Green Party spoke in downtown Milwaukee at the Henry Reuss Federal Plaza.
Prior to the May 17 action IAC-Milwaukee organizer Bryan G. Pfeifer was invited to speak about the struggle surrounding Mumia Abu-Jamal’s case on “The Eric Von” show hosted by African American- radio journalist Eric Von and “The Word Warriors Report,” hosted by African- American City Councilman Michael McGee Jr.
In Houston, in the execution capital of the country, where 16 executions are scheduled over the summer, anti-death penalty activists were fired up by the strong turnouts at two demonstrations. Outside the criminal courthouse, notorious for sending Shaka Sankofa, Frances Newton and Joseph Nichols to the execution chambers, demonstrators faced down a phalanx of cops in riot gear, mounted police and undercover cops everywhere that outnumbered the protesters 10-1. “Maybe they thought Mumia was joining us,” said one of the organizers.
In the afternoon from 4-6 p.m. there was another militant demonstration and rally, this one showing unity among young and older and Black, Latin@, Asian and white protesters from the Nation of Islam, the National Black United Front, the New Black Panther Party--whose youth distributed almost 600 of the Mumia newspapers--the Anarchist Black Cross, Code Pink, World Can’t Wait, gay activist/leader Ray Hill, the Revolutionary Communist Party, Zapatista supporters who just returned from meeting Zapatistas with La Otra Campana across the border, the director of S.H.A.P.E. Center where the Movement to Abolish the Death Penalty is based, the leader of the Venezuela Solidarity Committee and others as every group took the microphone.
In San Francisco over 300 people rallied in front of the federal building to demand that Mumia Abu-Jamal be set free, in an action sponsored by the locally-based Mobilization to Free Mumia Abu-Jamal. A broad coalition of students, union members, community activists and prisoner advocates spoke out, including Rudy Corpuz, Jr. and other members of United Playaz, who linked the fight to free Mumia with the everyday reality of repression and racism in the Black and Brown communities of the Bay Area.
Kiilu Nyasha, a local activist and former Black Panther Party member, delivered a solidarity statement to the crowd on behalf of the San Francisco 8 who are former BPP members and community activists who were arrested this spring and charged with the 1971 killing of a San Francisco policeman. Cristina Gutierrez of Barrio Unido called upon the crowd to unite to “change this system. His freedom is our freedom. His life is our life.” Judy Greenspan spoke at the rally representing Workers World Party. Other speakers demanded a new trial and freedom for Mumia.
Native political prisoner Leonard Peltier’s statement to Mumia was read from the podium in Milwaukee, Houston and other cities.
Cihan Celik in Istanbul, Susan Danann, Bob McCubbin, Bryan G. Pfeifer, Gloria Rubac and Judy Greenspan contributed to this article.
In at least five U.S. cities outside Philadelphia and at least eight other countries demonstrations in solidarity with Mumia Abu-Jamal took place aimed at bringing attention to the latest court hearing May 17 and winning the political prisoner a new trial on the way toward freeing him.
In Ankara, Turkey’s capital and Istanbul, its biggest city, activists protested against the United States for imprisoning Mumia unfairly for 25 years. The group included academics, journalists, human rights activists and also correspondents of the daily Evrensel in front of the U.S. Embassy in Ankara and the Central Post office in Istanbul. They delivered a petition to the U.S. Embassy demanding a fair trial for Mumia Abu-Jamal.
The Cleveland Lucasville Five Defense Committee demonstrated during rush hour downtown. Signs called for the freedom of Abu-Jamal and the Lucasville Five, innocent men who face execution in Ohio in relation to the 1993 Lucasville prison uprising, and demanded “Justice for Aaron Steele.” Steele, a 23-year old African-American bus mechanic, died May 8 after being shot multiple times by Cleveland police. Passersby grabbed hundreds of newsletters on Mumia’s case. Other Mumia supporters had held a protest during the morning rush hour.
Members of the San Diego International Action Center and the San Diego Mumia Coalition gathered at a busy community intersection and distributed newsletters and other material on Mumia’s case to workers on their way home from work in the evening commute. Several motorists pulled over to get more details on Mumia’s struggle. Poet Jim Moreno read his Ode to Mumia for the assembled activists.
Organized in only one week, a broad-base of labor and community activists joined to support a May 17 press conference and protest in Milwaukee demanding a new trial for political prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal.
Speakers from Africans on the Move, AFSCME Local 82, Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), International Action Center-Milwaukee, the National Lawyers Guild, Pan African Revolutionary Socialist Party, Peace Action-Wisconsin and the Wisconsin Green Party spoke in downtown Milwaukee at the Henry Reuss Federal Plaza.
Prior to the May 17 action IAC-Milwaukee organizer Bryan G. Pfeifer was invited to speak about the struggle surrounding Mumia Abu-Jamal’s case on “The Eric Von” show hosted by African American- radio journalist Eric Von and “The Word Warriors Report,” hosted by African- American City Councilman Michael McGee Jr.
In Houston, in the execution capital of the country, where 16 executions are scheduled over the summer, anti-death penalty activists were fired up by the strong turnouts at two demonstrations. Outside the criminal courthouse, notorious for sending Shaka Sankofa, Frances Newton and Joseph Nichols to the execution chambers, demonstrators faced down a phalanx of cops in riot gear, mounted police and undercover cops everywhere that outnumbered the protesters 10-1. “Maybe they thought Mumia was joining us,” said one of the organizers.
In the afternoon from 4-6 p.m. there was another militant demonstration and rally, this one showing unity among young and older and Black, Latin@, Asian and white protesters from the Nation of Islam, the National Black United Front, the New Black Panther Party--whose youth distributed almost 600 of the Mumia newspapers--the Anarchist Black Cross, Code Pink, World Can’t Wait, gay activist/leader Ray Hill, the Revolutionary Communist Party, Zapatista supporters who just returned from meeting Zapatistas with La Otra Campana across the border, the director of S.H.A.P.E. Center where the Movement to Abolish the Death Penalty is based, the leader of the Venezuela Solidarity Committee and others as every group took the microphone.
In San Francisco over 300 people rallied in front of the federal building to demand that Mumia Abu-Jamal be set free, in an action sponsored by the locally-based Mobilization to Free Mumia Abu-Jamal. A broad coalition of students, union members, community activists and prisoner advocates spoke out, including Rudy Corpuz, Jr. and other members of United Playaz, who linked the fight to free Mumia with the everyday reality of repression and racism in the Black and Brown communities of the Bay Area.
Kiilu Nyasha, a local activist and former Black Panther Party member, delivered a solidarity statement to the crowd on behalf of the San Francisco 8 who are former BPP members and community activists who were arrested this spring and charged with the 1971 killing of a San Francisco policeman. Cristina Gutierrez of Barrio Unido called upon the crowd to unite to “change this system. His freedom is our freedom. His life is our life.” Judy Greenspan spoke at the rally representing Workers World Party. Other speakers demanded a new trial and freedom for Mumia.
Native political prisoner Leonard Peltier’s statement to Mumia was read from the podium in Milwaukee, Houston and other cities.
Cihan Celik in Istanbul, Susan Danann, Bob McCubbin, Bryan G. Pfeifer, Gloria Rubac and Judy Greenspan contributed to this article.
Immortal Technique Explains The Significance Of Mumia Abu Jamal
May 18th, 2007 | Author: Andreas Hale
(Author's note: I would like to personally thank Immortal Technique for taking the time between recording his upcoming album and constantly being an active part of this and the many struggles around the world to write this piece on Mumia Abu Jamal. Hopefully it will shed some light on a case that is getting little press in the media.)
For the past few years I have been working to support the efforts of the Free Mumia organizations that cover this country. Whether they be in NYC, Philly or on the West Coast. Recently I did a show on the 16th to raise awareness for the March and rally to support the presentation of oral arguments that will bring him either a new trial or the death penalty. This case has been mired, I dare say imbued, in corruption of the Philadelphia Police Dept. and the so called Justice Dept.
After the sheer amount of Racism, witness intimidation and ballistics evidence there is no other explanation for the detaining of Mumia in prison when he is not a danger to his community. But rather Mumia Abu-Jamal has spent his entire life defending that community. I had originally planned to be there on May 17th but due to my arrival back in NYC to return the borrowed car at 6AM and a meeting with some people who just flew into the country about funding an orphanage in Afghanistan, that was made impossible. But this doesn't stop my heart from going out to my brother Mumia Abu-Jamal and my support from being channeled in order to make sure that we do not allow this case to just slip into the memories of Americans forever.
I would like to thank the hundreds of people who showed up (Wednesday) to put forth their support financially and spiritually for our brother. The turnout was incredible and it showed the city of Philadelphia's solidarity with this cause.
As a journalist, his reporting shed light on so many things going on in the ghetto. It is my firm belief that his voice became so apparent as one of dissent to corporate controlled media, that when the opportunity arose it can be seen the way that government manipulated the case. In 1981 when he was charged with the murder of Daniel Faulkner, the evidence was tainted, and sometimes altogether disappeared, he was refused the right to defend himself and his request to have John Africa from the MOVE organization was denied as well.
The Philadelphia Police also punished his supporters brutally to the extent of a full scale military style raid on their home. It became a notorious mark of how police brutality and the governments blind eye to a racist double standard of treatment had not been corrected by mere legislation. Helicopters were even used to drop a sizable bomb of military grade C4 explosives on the home of the MOVE organization killing 11 people including 5 children. During the course of assaulting the house on 6221 Osage Ave. they used Shotguns, Uzi's, browning automatics, tear gas, water hoses, M-16's, M60's and a .50 caliber machine gun to fire almost 10,000 rounds into the house. The explosion of C4 and the gunfire set an entire city block a blaze, which the police allowed to burn, eventually consuming over 50 other homes.
The 1985 bombing of the MOVE home and murder of all these people has never been justified by the Justice Dept. They have scrambled for reasoning and the puppet mayor at the time who himself was a black man (Wilson Goode) made it clear to anyone that studies that power structure of politics that it doesn't matter what the figure head or the representative is, he doesn't dictate the policy of the establishment. Rather, he is there to present an example of what we need to assimilate to in terms of subservience in order to be allowed to remain in power.
Really though, the problems between the MOVE organization attempting to gain the economic control of their own neighborhood and the police locking the city down had started years before. In 1975, because of MOVE's pro black stance on equality, they became a full fledged target and the harassment became a part of life for them. And in 1976 they became the victims of viciously provoked attacks over a disturbing the peace complaint that wouldn't have been able to merit a ticket nowadays.The result was a violent beating given to MOVE supporters on the street who questioned the polices actions and an attack on two women one of whom, Janine Africa,was assaulted by police, thrown to the floor and stomped with her 3 week old baby in her arms resulting the death of her child, Life Africa.
In 1978 a raid on the MOVE headquarters ended violently with 9 people jailed for 30-100 years for the alleged shooting of police officer James Ramp. Sketchy evidence and numerous inconsistencies were abound but led to Judge Edwin Malmed's sentencing the 9 MOVE members regardless. Some have even said that Malmed was the catalyst for the police attack. When asked by Mumia after the trial "Who shot James Ramp?" Judge Edwin Malmed replied that he "didn't have the faintest idea" and stated that since the members of MOVE wanted to be tried together he sentenced them together. Even conservative white republicans in the area listening to the local talk radio show were disturbed by this response which unabashedly divulged the frivolous legality of what the court system was passing off as justice. It is this type of investigative reporting as I stated earlier that brought him to attention of authorities.
The story of Mumia was not a winding confusing series of events that no one has any remembrance of there are several witnesses to these atrocities. Those who insist on Mumia's guilt would do themselves a disservice by not asking of themselves that the reworking of evidence, attacking of witnesses and not granting someone a fair trial is not only a disservice to Mumia but also a disservice to the memory of the other person whose life was taken from them on that day, Daniel Faulkner.
The police have a brotherhood. A brotherhood they are rarely ever seen to betray. A code of silence where they do not testify against other officers. They believe anyone guilty of the murder of an officer should receive the death penalty- no questions asked. But a question comes to mind, if Mumia is not guilty and his coverage of the police raid of the home in 1978 already left him as a person of interest for the government, why was he under FBI surveillance since he was 14 years old? Ask yourself, is he on trial for what he allegedly did the night of December 9th because he is the person who would fit the description of who they would want to be responsible- a strong, articulate, self educated African man who would not deny his culture or watch his family and friends abused by a notoriously racist police dept? Is he the person who fits the description of what you need guilt to be in order to justify the way you see the world.
I ask this to those that would view this with skepticism because that skepticism created by the right wing to counterbalance reason does Daniel Faulkner a disservice as well as Mumia. It leaves his killer at large and destroys what's left of the credibility of the justice system. The harder they squeeze the more reality slips through their fingers and when it is all said and done, what is the legacy of this trial. Justice? Retribution? None of the above, it is simply the fact that for the past 26 years an innocent man has been behind bars and slowly but surely media outlets like our own BET have been pressured to maintain their distance from him. Black and Latino politicians have been pressured to stop bringing him up. The Murder of an officer is a serious crime, and so anyone that would add doubt to the government's version of the events is attacked by the right and abandoned by the left. An interesting transition of events that seems to repeat itself with other things and is why the Democratic party is so weak. But the management of this trial and the way that this government has run its police dept. leaves no question that they wouldn't go through all the trouble if they weren't hiding something.
* Footnote: Mumia was not a violent man, he was not a sadist like officer Geist who carried out the first assault on the MOVE home in 1978, and whose own wife shot him to death after years of merciless abuse. This occurred after the trial over the raid of the MOVE home in 1978 and was kept out of the court because officer Geist's wife was pressured not to speak on it by police.
No one asks to be a Revolutionary Martyr, no one asks to be Nelson Mandela, Mumia, Shaka Sankofa, or Hurricane Carter. Mumia Abu Jamal didn't leave his house that morning thinking "I'm going to spend the next quarter of a century in prison so that I may provide an example to the world of police corruption and injustice done in a land that professes to be the most advanced and civilized nation in the world." But when he left his house that day for work that's exactly what he became and unless you know your rights and unless you arm yourself intellectually and are able to understand the legal system and the changes that are occurring quietly but rapidly in our legal system asking questions can bring you the same fate.
Someone once told me that Pennsylvania was Philadelphia and Pittsburgh and Mississippi between them. I think having lived there and been incarcerated there, while I have not seen Mississippi and therefore cannot draw the comparison. But I will say there that it is a State of the Union in name only and still has pockets of confederate resistance all over the place. It's a state notorious for having a huge amount of hate groups. It is a place that we must take back before we even think of expanding anywhere else on the East.
Mumia represent a lot of things for different people, but to me he represents something very simple, not abandoning your brothers because of public pressure when you believe their cause to be true. When there were no WMD's found in Iraq that didn't stop the right wing. Dick Cheney claimed they were moved and there was a relationship between Al-Quaeda and Iraq. Sean Hannity, the man who is so far right he's approaching the justification for fascism in defense of democracy, claimed they were probably moved to Syria. But this is NOT the mirror image to their extreme dedication to a lie that has cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people in the course of seeking out their self fulfilling prophecy of catastrophe. This is the story of an incident that was covered up on December 9th in 1981 where two people lost their lives. And in the interest of seeking a quick and easy decision against someone whose believe in self determination and struggle made him a likely candidate all other possibilities were stripped from the systems mind. "Black Militants want to kill us," kept being repeated. "Maybe Mumia was jealous of Officer Daniel Faulkner's freedom," because of course freedom is why people carry out world wars and terrorist attacks. Or maybe he was just speaking for the voiceless and his punishment for doing so was to be incarcerated on charges for a crime he didn't commit.
While there are those that will forget him, others will change their stance and claim his guilt to feel like they belong to the majority. There are people who will continue to fight for his release and a new fair trial without the racism, corrupted evidence and moral ambiguity of the government's tactics in 1981 and subsequently after. Which, if you think about it, was only 11 years after America granted Black People the right to vote.
So vote today and everyday with your actions, not for a president, but for Justice that must be done around you, and for the struggle of Mumia who is not forgotten in Harlem NYC or around the world.
Peace & Respect,
Immortal
Technique
(Author's note: I would like to personally thank Immortal Technique for taking the time between recording his upcoming album and constantly being an active part of this and the many struggles around the world to write this piece on Mumia Abu Jamal. Hopefully it will shed some light on a case that is getting little press in the media.)
For the past few years I have been working to support the efforts of the Free Mumia organizations that cover this country. Whether they be in NYC, Philly or on the West Coast. Recently I did a show on the 16th to raise awareness for the March and rally to support the presentation of oral arguments that will bring him either a new trial or the death penalty. This case has been mired, I dare say imbued, in corruption of the Philadelphia Police Dept. and the so called Justice Dept.
After the sheer amount of Racism, witness intimidation and ballistics evidence there is no other explanation for the detaining of Mumia in prison when he is not a danger to his community. But rather Mumia Abu-Jamal has spent his entire life defending that community. I had originally planned to be there on May 17th but due to my arrival back in NYC to return the borrowed car at 6AM and a meeting with some people who just flew into the country about funding an orphanage in Afghanistan, that was made impossible. But this doesn't stop my heart from going out to my brother Mumia Abu-Jamal and my support from being channeled in order to make sure that we do not allow this case to just slip into the memories of Americans forever.
I would like to thank the hundreds of people who showed up (Wednesday) to put forth their support financially and spiritually for our brother. The turnout was incredible and it showed the city of Philadelphia's solidarity with this cause.
As a journalist, his reporting shed light on so many things going on in the ghetto. It is my firm belief that his voice became so apparent as one of dissent to corporate controlled media, that when the opportunity arose it can be seen the way that government manipulated the case. In 1981 when he was charged with the murder of Daniel Faulkner, the evidence was tainted, and sometimes altogether disappeared, he was refused the right to defend himself and his request to have John Africa from the MOVE organization was denied as well.
The Philadelphia Police also punished his supporters brutally to the extent of a full scale military style raid on their home. It became a notorious mark of how police brutality and the governments blind eye to a racist double standard of treatment had not been corrected by mere legislation. Helicopters were even used to drop a sizable bomb of military grade C4 explosives on the home of the MOVE organization killing 11 people including 5 children. During the course of assaulting the house on 6221 Osage Ave. they used Shotguns, Uzi's, browning automatics, tear gas, water hoses, M-16's, M60's and a .50 caliber machine gun to fire almost 10,000 rounds into the house. The explosion of C4 and the gunfire set an entire city block a blaze, which the police allowed to burn, eventually consuming over 50 other homes.
The 1985 bombing of the MOVE home and murder of all these people has never been justified by the Justice Dept. They have scrambled for reasoning and the puppet mayor at the time who himself was a black man (Wilson Goode) made it clear to anyone that studies that power structure of politics that it doesn't matter what the figure head or the representative is, he doesn't dictate the policy of the establishment. Rather, he is there to present an example of what we need to assimilate to in terms of subservience in order to be allowed to remain in power.
Really though, the problems between the MOVE organization attempting to gain the economic control of their own neighborhood and the police locking the city down had started years before. In 1975, because of MOVE's pro black stance on equality, they became a full fledged target and the harassment became a part of life for them. And in 1976 they became the victims of viciously provoked attacks over a disturbing the peace complaint that wouldn't have been able to merit a ticket nowadays.The result was a violent beating given to MOVE supporters on the street who questioned the polices actions and an attack on two women one of whom, Janine Africa,was assaulted by police, thrown to the floor and stomped with her 3 week old baby in her arms resulting the death of her child, Life Africa.
In 1978 a raid on the MOVE headquarters ended violently with 9 people jailed for 30-100 years for the alleged shooting of police officer James Ramp. Sketchy evidence and numerous inconsistencies were abound but led to Judge Edwin Malmed's sentencing the 9 MOVE members regardless. Some have even said that Malmed was the catalyst for the police attack. When asked by Mumia after the trial "Who shot James Ramp?" Judge Edwin Malmed replied that he "didn't have the faintest idea" and stated that since the members of MOVE wanted to be tried together he sentenced them together. Even conservative white republicans in the area listening to the local talk radio show were disturbed by this response which unabashedly divulged the frivolous legality of what the court system was passing off as justice. It is this type of investigative reporting as I stated earlier that brought him to attention of authorities.
The story of Mumia was not a winding confusing series of events that no one has any remembrance of there are several witnesses to these atrocities. Those who insist on Mumia's guilt would do themselves a disservice by not asking of themselves that the reworking of evidence, attacking of witnesses and not granting someone a fair trial is not only a disservice to Mumia but also a disservice to the memory of the other person whose life was taken from them on that day, Daniel Faulkner.
The police have a brotherhood. A brotherhood they are rarely ever seen to betray. A code of silence where they do not testify against other officers. They believe anyone guilty of the murder of an officer should receive the death penalty- no questions asked. But a question comes to mind, if Mumia is not guilty and his coverage of the police raid of the home in 1978 already left him as a person of interest for the government, why was he under FBI surveillance since he was 14 years old? Ask yourself, is he on trial for what he allegedly did the night of December 9th because he is the person who would fit the description of who they would want to be responsible- a strong, articulate, self educated African man who would not deny his culture or watch his family and friends abused by a notoriously racist police dept? Is he the person who fits the description of what you need guilt to be in order to justify the way you see the world.
I ask this to those that would view this with skepticism because that skepticism created by the right wing to counterbalance reason does Daniel Faulkner a disservice as well as Mumia. It leaves his killer at large and destroys what's left of the credibility of the justice system. The harder they squeeze the more reality slips through their fingers and when it is all said and done, what is the legacy of this trial. Justice? Retribution? None of the above, it is simply the fact that for the past 26 years an innocent man has been behind bars and slowly but surely media outlets like our own BET have been pressured to maintain their distance from him. Black and Latino politicians have been pressured to stop bringing him up. The Murder of an officer is a serious crime, and so anyone that would add doubt to the government's version of the events is attacked by the right and abandoned by the left. An interesting transition of events that seems to repeat itself with other things and is why the Democratic party is so weak. But the management of this trial and the way that this government has run its police dept. leaves no question that they wouldn't go through all the trouble if they weren't hiding something.
* Footnote: Mumia was not a violent man, he was not a sadist like officer Geist who carried out the first assault on the MOVE home in 1978, and whose own wife shot him to death after years of merciless abuse. This occurred after the trial over the raid of the MOVE home in 1978 and was kept out of the court because officer Geist's wife was pressured not to speak on it by police.
No one asks to be a Revolutionary Martyr, no one asks to be Nelson Mandela, Mumia, Shaka Sankofa, or Hurricane Carter. Mumia Abu Jamal didn't leave his house that morning thinking "I'm going to spend the next quarter of a century in prison so that I may provide an example to the world of police corruption and injustice done in a land that professes to be the most advanced and civilized nation in the world." But when he left his house that day for work that's exactly what he became and unless you know your rights and unless you arm yourself intellectually and are able to understand the legal system and the changes that are occurring quietly but rapidly in our legal system asking questions can bring you the same fate.
Someone once told me that Pennsylvania was Philadelphia and Pittsburgh and Mississippi between them. I think having lived there and been incarcerated there, while I have not seen Mississippi and therefore cannot draw the comparison. But I will say there that it is a State of the Union in name only and still has pockets of confederate resistance all over the place. It's a state notorious for having a huge amount of hate groups. It is a place that we must take back before we even think of expanding anywhere else on the East.
Mumia represent a lot of things for different people, but to me he represents something very simple, not abandoning your brothers because of public pressure when you believe their cause to be true. When there were no WMD's found in Iraq that didn't stop the right wing. Dick Cheney claimed they were moved and there was a relationship between Al-Quaeda and Iraq. Sean Hannity, the man who is so far right he's approaching the justification for fascism in defense of democracy, claimed they were probably moved to Syria. But this is NOT the mirror image to their extreme dedication to a lie that has cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people in the course of seeking out their self fulfilling prophecy of catastrophe. This is the story of an incident that was covered up on December 9th in 1981 where two people lost their lives. And in the interest of seeking a quick and easy decision against someone whose believe in self determination and struggle made him a likely candidate all other possibilities were stripped from the systems mind. "Black Militants want to kill us," kept being repeated. "Maybe Mumia was jealous of Officer Daniel Faulkner's freedom," because of course freedom is why people carry out world wars and terrorist attacks. Or maybe he was just speaking for the voiceless and his punishment for doing so was to be incarcerated on charges for a crime he didn't commit.
While there are those that will forget him, others will change their stance and claim his guilt to feel like they belong to the majority. There are people who will continue to fight for his release and a new fair trial without the racism, corrupted evidence and moral ambiguity of the government's tactics in 1981 and subsequently after. Which, if you think about it, was only 11 years after America granted Black People the right to vote.
So vote today and everyday with your actions, not for a president, but for Justice that must be done around you, and for the struggle of Mumia who is not forgotten in Harlem NYC or around the world.
Peace & Respect,
Immortal
Technique
Mumia Case on Hold as Appellate Judges Deliberate
Mumia Case on Hold as Appellate Judges Deliberate
by Dave Lindorff
http://www.opednews.com
Momentous decisions are ahead in the 25-year-long case of Philadelphia death row prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal, following a hearing before a three-judge panel of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia Thursday.
Burns, who has been the lead attorney for the Philadelphia DA on this case since at least 1995, and who heads the appeals unit, went up against San Francisco death penalty appellate attorney Robert R. Bryan, who assumed the role of lead attorney for Abu-Jamal in 2003.
Abu-Jamal, who was not present at the packed hearing in the ceremonial courtroom of the Federal Courthouse across from the Liberty Bell museum in Philadelphia, had three claims before the Appellate Court, all challenging his conviction for the 1981 murder of Philadelphia Police Officer Daniel Faulkner. Judith Ritter, Abu-Jamal's local counsel, argued argued against a claim by the District Attorney to overturn a 2001 decision by a lower federal court which threw out his death sentence. Christina Swarns, a counsel with the NAACP Legal defense Fund, argued in support of Abu-Jamal's appeal as a "friend of the court."
The two-and-a-half-hour hearing began with prosecutor Burns tryng to make the case that Federal District Judge William Yohn had erred in vacating Abu-Jamal's death sentence. Judge Yohn had ruled in 2001 that an ambiguous and poorly worded jury verdict form, and an even more ambiguous instruction from the judge in the case, Albert Sabo, had left jurors believing, wrongly, that they had to all agree on any mitigating circumstances before weighing them in their decision as to the death penalty. In fact, any one juror can find a mitigating circumstance, while a death penalty decision must be unanimous. Burns claimed that Yohn's basis for his ruling was flawed. But all three of the judges—Chief Judge Anthony Scirica and Judge Robert Cowen, both Reagan appointees, and Thomas Ambro, a Clinton appointee—seemed to take a dim view of Burns' arguments. Judging from their challenging questions to Burns, and their generally favorable questions to Abu-Jamal's attorneys, it seemed likely that they would, in the end, uphold Yohn's decision.
If they do, Abu-Jamal's death sentence would be lifted once and for all. At that point, the DA would have 180 days to decide whether to seek a retrial on just his sentence (not guilt). Several years ago, in an interview with this reporter, Joseph McGill, the original prosecutor at Abu-Jamal's trial, said the DA's office had apparently not decided whether it would seek a retrial on the death penalty if Yohn was upheld on appeal, as this would require impaneling a new jury, and essentially retrying the case, since a new jury would not know the issues leading to conviction. The DA has to realize that a death sentence would be much harder to win in today's Philadelphia, where it would be much harder for the prosecution to obtain a jury of 10 whites and two blacks, as it managed to do for the trial in 1982. Also, in 1982, Jamal had an attorney who had never handled a death penalty case before, and he didn't even attempt to bring in witnesses to offer mitigating evidence against a death sentence.
A definitive end to Abu-Jamal's death sentence, even if his conviction remained in place or on appeal, would mean a major change in his status. For one thing, the DA's office would no longer be able, as it has done since 2001, be able to pressure the courts into keeping him locked away in solitary confinement on the state's super-max death row outside Pittsburgh.
On the conviction issues, the court and Abu-Jamal's attorneys focused on a claim that his jury had been unconstitutionally purged of African Americans by a prosecutor who had a history of removing blacks from capital juries—a so-called Batson claim (after the US Supreme Court decision in 1986). The main presentation of the case by attorney Bryan was hampered by frequent questions from the judges, who kept asking for more evidence than just the undisputed fact that prosecutor McGill had used peremptory challenges to remove 10 otherwise qualified black jurors from the jury, compared with only five whites. Bryan pointed out that McGill had made his concern about black jurors clear when, during the trial, he raised an alarm that a black judge had entered the courtroom and sat near Abu-Jamal's supporters in the spectators' gallery. Reading from the court transcript, Bryan noted that McGill had said, "If the court pleases, the two black jurors may know him." (Of course, as Abu-Jamal's then attorney Anthony Jackson noted, there was an equal chance any of the white jurors might have known the judge, but McGill didn't seem to care about them.) In his written brief to the court, Bryan also notes that McGill, over the course of six capital trials including Abu-Jamal's, used peremptory challenges to strike 74 percent of qualified black jurors, compared to only 25 percent of white jurors. That brief also notes that over Ed Rendell's two terms as Philadelphia district attorney, when the man who is now Pennsylvania's governor was McGill's boss, the DA's office struck black jurors in capital cases 58 percent of the time, compared to only 22 percent of the time for whites. (Indeed, in 1982, and until the high court's Batson ruling in 1986, the Philadelphia DA actually followed a state supreme court decision called Henderson, which ruled that it was permissible for prosecutors to strike blacks from a jury if they thought they might tend to favor a defendant of the same race.)
DA prosecutor Burns, for his part, focused on an argument that Abu-Jamal's jury bias claim had been forfeited on procedural grounds because he allegedly had not made it soon enough—either during his trial or in the early stages of his state court appeal. This argument was weakened by the fact that the Supreme Court only made race-based jury selection clearly illegal in 1986, well after Abu-Jamal's trial, and by the fact that documentary scientific evidence of the Philadelphia prosecutor's systematic rejection of black jurors did not come to light until after 1997, after Abu-Jamal's state appeal had been exhausted.
At least one judge, Ambro, seemed clearly sympathetic with Abu-Jamal's Batson claim. The other two judges were harder to read, as they asked tough questions of both Bryan and Burns. One judge, Cowen, on several occasions suggested the improbable possibility that since nobody knew the racial mix of the Abu-Jamal jury pool, it "might have been" majority African-American, "in which case the prosecutor's peremptory challenges might be seen as having been biased against whites." This view is clearly preposterous in a city where the court system had been--and to some extent still is--struggling to obtain an appropriate representation of African Americans on juries. Indeed, back in 1982, the city was still using only voter registration lists to call people to jury duty, and blacks at that time, while constituting 40 percent of the city's population, were notoriously under-represented on the voter rolls. Years later, following a federal lawsuit, the city has changed its method for compiling jury pools, but a lawyer long familiary with the issue says it would have been "almost inconceivable" for there to have been a majority black jury pool in 1982 under the old system.
If at least two of the three judges on the Third Circuit panel were to find prima facie evidence of a Batson violation in Abu-Jamal's trial, they would likely send the case back to the Federal District Court, where Judge Yohn would be ordered to hold a full evidentiary hearing on the issue. In general, courts have held that the threshold for proving a prima facie case of a Batson violation--and thus winning an evidentiary hearing--is fairly low, while proving an actual case of bias--and winning a new trial--can be much harder.
The second appeal claim by Abu-Jamal--that his trial had been unconstitutionally tainted by a summation statement to the jury by prosecutor McGill in which he told jurors their guilty verdict would "not be final" because Abu-Jamal would have "appeal after appeal," was given relatively short shrift at the hearing, because of the time spent on the Batson issue. Nonetheless it won support from a surprising quarter.
Prosecutor Burns argued to the court that they should not even be considering the issue, since the US Supreme Court has never ruled that such clearly improper language by a prosecutor should undo a conviction--only a death sentence. But Judge Cowen, looking incredulous, asked Burns, "Isn't saying that undermining a defendant's right to a fair trial?"
If Cowen took that question seriously--and feels that telling jurors that their judgment isn't really final, could undermine the concept of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"—then he could be considering overturning the guilty verdict. If a second judge went along with his view, that would mean a new trial for Abu-Jamal--except for the fact that the DA would certainly appeal such a decision to the US Supreme Court, (which would be bound to consider it, because of such a ruling's far-reaching implications).
There was no discussion of Abu-Jamal's third claim, which was that his post-conviction hearing had been constitutionally flawed because of a pro-prosecution bias on the part of Judge Albert Sabo, the same judge who had presided over his trial. The fact that there was no argument on this claim by either side doesn't matter much, since both sides have filed detail briefs with the court, as they also did on the other claims. Apparently, the three judges had no major questions for either side regarding their respective arguments.
There is no specific timetable for the court to decide on the four claims before it, though some attorneys predict a decision can probably be expected in one or two months.
Outside the courtroom, in the plaza in front of the courthouse, and along 6th Street, several hundred pro-Abu-Jamal demonstrators, many carrying "Free Mumia" signs, staged a spirited demonstration. Inside the courtroom, Abu-Jamal supporters filled most of the seats reserved for spectators. Near the front sat Officer Faulkner's widow, Maureen, and several family members and supporters, who were allowed to enter the courtroom via a private entrance while other spectators had to go through security gates and line up at the courthouse's main entrance.
Prosecutor McGill was also in attendance.
by Dave Lindorff
http://www.opednews.com
Momentous decisions are ahead in the 25-year-long case of Philadelphia death row prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal, following a hearing before a three-judge panel of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia Thursday.
Burns, who has been the lead attorney for the Philadelphia DA on this case since at least 1995, and who heads the appeals unit, went up against San Francisco death penalty appellate attorney Robert R. Bryan, who assumed the role of lead attorney for Abu-Jamal in 2003.
Abu-Jamal, who was not present at the packed hearing in the ceremonial courtroom of the Federal Courthouse across from the Liberty Bell museum in Philadelphia, had three claims before the Appellate Court, all challenging his conviction for the 1981 murder of Philadelphia Police Officer Daniel Faulkner. Judith Ritter, Abu-Jamal's local counsel, argued argued against a claim by the District Attorney to overturn a 2001 decision by a lower federal court which threw out his death sentence. Christina Swarns, a counsel with the NAACP Legal defense Fund, argued in support of Abu-Jamal's appeal as a "friend of the court."
The two-and-a-half-hour hearing began with prosecutor Burns tryng to make the case that Federal District Judge William Yohn had erred in vacating Abu-Jamal's death sentence. Judge Yohn had ruled in 2001 that an ambiguous and poorly worded jury verdict form, and an even more ambiguous instruction from the judge in the case, Albert Sabo, had left jurors believing, wrongly, that they had to all agree on any mitigating circumstances before weighing them in their decision as to the death penalty. In fact, any one juror can find a mitigating circumstance, while a death penalty decision must be unanimous. Burns claimed that Yohn's basis for his ruling was flawed. But all three of the judges—Chief Judge Anthony Scirica and Judge Robert Cowen, both Reagan appointees, and Thomas Ambro, a Clinton appointee—seemed to take a dim view of Burns' arguments. Judging from their challenging questions to Burns, and their generally favorable questions to Abu-Jamal's attorneys, it seemed likely that they would, in the end, uphold Yohn's decision.
If they do, Abu-Jamal's death sentence would be lifted once and for all. At that point, the DA would have 180 days to decide whether to seek a retrial on just his sentence (not guilt). Several years ago, in an interview with this reporter, Joseph McGill, the original prosecutor at Abu-Jamal's trial, said the DA's office had apparently not decided whether it would seek a retrial on the death penalty if Yohn was upheld on appeal, as this would require impaneling a new jury, and essentially retrying the case, since a new jury would not know the issues leading to conviction. The DA has to realize that a death sentence would be much harder to win in today's Philadelphia, where it would be much harder for the prosecution to obtain a jury of 10 whites and two blacks, as it managed to do for the trial in 1982. Also, in 1982, Jamal had an attorney who had never handled a death penalty case before, and he didn't even attempt to bring in witnesses to offer mitigating evidence against a death sentence.
A definitive end to Abu-Jamal's death sentence, even if his conviction remained in place or on appeal, would mean a major change in his status. For one thing, the DA's office would no longer be able, as it has done since 2001, be able to pressure the courts into keeping him locked away in solitary confinement on the state's super-max death row outside Pittsburgh.
On the conviction issues, the court and Abu-Jamal's attorneys focused on a claim that his jury had been unconstitutionally purged of African Americans by a prosecutor who had a history of removing blacks from capital juries—a so-called Batson claim (after the US Supreme Court decision in 1986). The main presentation of the case by attorney Bryan was hampered by frequent questions from the judges, who kept asking for more evidence than just the undisputed fact that prosecutor McGill had used peremptory challenges to remove 10 otherwise qualified black jurors from the jury, compared with only five whites. Bryan pointed out that McGill had made his concern about black jurors clear when, during the trial, he raised an alarm that a black judge had entered the courtroom and sat near Abu-Jamal's supporters in the spectators' gallery. Reading from the court transcript, Bryan noted that McGill had said, "If the court pleases, the two black jurors may know him." (Of course, as Abu-Jamal's then attorney Anthony Jackson noted, there was an equal chance any of the white jurors might have known the judge, but McGill didn't seem to care about them.) In his written brief to the court, Bryan also notes that McGill, over the course of six capital trials including Abu-Jamal's, used peremptory challenges to strike 74 percent of qualified black jurors, compared to only 25 percent of white jurors. That brief also notes that over Ed Rendell's two terms as Philadelphia district attorney, when the man who is now Pennsylvania's governor was McGill's boss, the DA's office struck black jurors in capital cases 58 percent of the time, compared to only 22 percent of the time for whites. (Indeed, in 1982, and until the high court's Batson ruling in 1986, the Philadelphia DA actually followed a state supreme court decision called Henderson, which ruled that it was permissible for prosecutors to strike blacks from a jury if they thought they might tend to favor a defendant of the same race.)
DA prosecutor Burns, for his part, focused on an argument that Abu-Jamal's jury bias claim had been forfeited on procedural grounds because he allegedly had not made it soon enough—either during his trial or in the early stages of his state court appeal. This argument was weakened by the fact that the Supreme Court only made race-based jury selection clearly illegal in 1986, well after Abu-Jamal's trial, and by the fact that documentary scientific evidence of the Philadelphia prosecutor's systematic rejection of black jurors did not come to light until after 1997, after Abu-Jamal's state appeal had been exhausted.
At least one judge, Ambro, seemed clearly sympathetic with Abu-Jamal's Batson claim. The other two judges were harder to read, as they asked tough questions of both Bryan and Burns. One judge, Cowen, on several occasions suggested the improbable possibility that since nobody knew the racial mix of the Abu-Jamal jury pool, it "might have been" majority African-American, "in which case the prosecutor's peremptory challenges might be seen as having been biased against whites." This view is clearly preposterous in a city where the court system had been--and to some extent still is--struggling to obtain an appropriate representation of African Americans on juries. Indeed, back in 1982, the city was still using only voter registration lists to call people to jury duty, and blacks at that time, while constituting 40 percent of the city's population, were notoriously under-represented on the voter rolls. Years later, following a federal lawsuit, the city has changed its method for compiling jury pools, but a lawyer long familiary with the issue says it would have been "almost inconceivable" for there to have been a majority black jury pool in 1982 under the old system.
If at least two of the three judges on the Third Circuit panel were to find prima facie evidence of a Batson violation in Abu-Jamal's trial, they would likely send the case back to the Federal District Court, where Judge Yohn would be ordered to hold a full evidentiary hearing on the issue. In general, courts have held that the threshold for proving a prima facie case of a Batson violation--and thus winning an evidentiary hearing--is fairly low, while proving an actual case of bias--and winning a new trial--can be much harder.
The second appeal claim by Abu-Jamal--that his trial had been unconstitutionally tainted by a summation statement to the jury by prosecutor McGill in which he told jurors their guilty verdict would "not be final" because Abu-Jamal would have "appeal after appeal," was given relatively short shrift at the hearing, because of the time spent on the Batson issue. Nonetheless it won support from a surprising quarter.
Prosecutor Burns argued to the court that they should not even be considering the issue, since the US Supreme Court has never ruled that such clearly improper language by a prosecutor should undo a conviction--only a death sentence. But Judge Cowen, looking incredulous, asked Burns, "Isn't saying that undermining a defendant's right to a fair trial?"
If Cowen took that question seriously--and feels that telling jurors that their judgment isn't really final, could undermine the concept of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"—then he could be considering overturning the guilty verdict. If a second judge went along with his view, that would mean a new trial for Abu-Jamal--except for the fact that the DA would certainly appeal such a decision to the US Supreme Court, (which would be bound to consider it, because of such a ruling's far-reaching implications).
There was no discussion of Abu-Jamal's third claim, which was that his post-conviction hearing had been constitutionally flawed because of a pro-prosecution bias on the part of Judge Albert Sabo, the same judge who had presided over his trial. The fact that there was no argument on this claim by either side doesn't matter much, since both sides have filed detail briefs with the court, as they also did on the other claims. Apparently, the three judges had no major questions for either side regarding their respective arguments.
There is no specific timetable for the court to decide on the four claims before it, though some attorneys predict a decision can probably be expected in one or two months.
Outside the courtroom, in the plaza in front of the courthouse, and along 6th Street, several hundred pro-Abu-Jamal demonstrators, many carrying "Free Mumia" signs, staged a spirited demonstration. Inside the courtroom, Abu-Jamal supporters filled most of the seats reserved for spectators. Near the front sat Officer Faulkner's widow, Maureen, and several family members and supporters, who were allowed to enter the courtroom via a private entrance while other spectators had to go through security gates and line up at the courthouse's main entrance.
Prosecutor McGill was also in attendance.
London Protests Call for Mumia's Freedom
Free Mumia Abu-Jamal! Abolish the racist death penalty! Mumia is innocent! were among the chants from a 100-strong crowd outside the US Embassy in Grosvenor Square.
Protests took place internationally on Thursday 17 May, the day Mumia's case was heard before three judges in the US Court of Appeals of the Third Circuit – just below the Supreme Court. A decision is expected within 90 days.
Greetings were read to the London rally from the International Concerned Family and Friends of Mumia Abu-Jamal in Philadelphia,along with a statement from William Singletary, a witness to the 9 December 1981 events, who asserts that Mumia did not arrive on the scene until several minutes after police officer Faulkner had been shot.
Contributions to an open mic were made by supporters of MOVE, Friends of Africa, the Partisan Defense Committee, the International Bolshevik Tendency, the Spartacist League, Legal Action for Women and individual Mumia activists. A collection for Mumia's legal defence raised £40.
Just before the protest began, Colourful Radio interviewed Mumia campaigner Michael W.
For more pictures of the demonstration see: http://www.freemumia.multiservers.com/
For the latest news from the court hearing, see this interview with Mumia's attorney Robert Bryan.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/18/1429203
Protests took place internationally on Thursday 17 May, the day Mumia's case was heard before three judges in the US Court of Appeals of the Third Circuit – just below the Supreme Court. A decision is expected within 90 days.
Greetings were read to the London rally from the International Concerned Family and Friends of Mumia Abu-Jamal in Philadelphia,along with a statement from William Singletary, a witness to the 9 December 1981 events, who asserts that Mumia did not arrive on the scene until several minutes after police officer Faulkner had been shot.
Contributions to an open mic were made by supporters of MOVE, Friends of Africa, the Partisan Defense Committee, the International Bolshevik Tendency, the Spartacist League, Legal Action for Women and individual Mumia activists. A collection for Mumia's legal defence raised £40.
Just before the protest began, Colourful Radio interviewed Mumia campaigner Michael W.
For more pictures of the demonstration see: http://www.freemumia.multiservers.com/
For the latest news from the court hearing, see this interview with Mumia's attorney Robert Bryan.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/18/1429203
Radio interviews at Mumia's court hearing
More audio from the actions around Mumia's court hearing, from Hans Bennett who spoke with a number of those present in the courtroom about their reflections on the procedure, including MOVE member Ramona Africa, scholar and activist Ward Churchill, German legislator Volker Ratzmann and Mark Taylor of Educators for Mumia.
Listen to the interviews here
Listen to the interviews here
May 17 Oral Arguments - The People Gather in Solidarity
Thank you to all who showed support on May 17th for Mumia's Oral Arguments which were heard before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. In the next coming months we will receive word on the court's decision which could be anything from granting Mumia a new trial, to an execution date.
CLICK HERE for radio interviews at Mumia's court hearing with Ward Churchill, Ramona Africa and others.
CLICK HERE for pictures taken by Eroc of the Foundation Movement on May 17th in Philly.
CLICK HERE for more pictures!
Statement by William Singletary, a witness in the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal
Following is a Statement by William Singletary, a witness in the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal (1995 PCRA hearing). This statement was sent to the Labor Action Committee To Free Mumia Abu-Jamal, in order that it be read at rallies held in solidarity with death-row journalist Mumia Abu-Jamal, on the day of what likely is his last appeal hearing--before a panel of the Third Circuit federal court in Philadelphia, PA, May 17th 2007.
Singletary says he is perhaps the only true witness to the events of the early morning hours of December 9th, 1981, at 13th and Locust streets in Philadelphia, at which radio journalist and former Black Panther Mumia Abu-Jamal was beaten, and fingered by police for the murder of a police officer. Singletary was never called to testify at the rigged and racist charade, which is sometimes referred to as Mumia's1982 trial.
Singletary insists that Mumia Abu-Jamal did not even arrive on the scene until after the officer was shot, and did not in any way participate in the shooting. Mumia himself was a victim, having been shot and then viciously attacked by white Philadelphia cops.
The hearing on May 17th may be Mumia's last. It concerns only a few issues out of a great many outstanding questions in this case, most of which have never been heard in court. The evidence shows that Mumia is innocent, and the statement below is just one of the many proofs of that fact. Rallies in solidarity with Mumia Abu-Jamal are being held in Philadelphia, New York, Chicago, San Francsco and San Jose California, as well as London, Toronto, Amsterdam, and others internationally.
(for a photocopy of the original signed statement, send a request by email to: LACFreeMumia@aol.com.)
Good-morning/Afternoon;
My name is William Singletary. I am an eye-witness to the murder or assassination of Police Officer Daniel Faulkner on December 9, 1981, in the early morning hours at 13th and Locust Street in Philadelphia, PA.
Mumia Abu-Jamal did not shoot Daniel Faulkner. I stood as close as 12 to 15 feet when Officer Faulkner was killed. When two bullets were viciously pumped into Officer Faulkner, the shooter then looked into my direction.
We locked eyes for a few seconds. His stare was like a thousand ice picks aiming for my heart. I slowly backed up; we never unlocked eyes until he flung the 22 caliber pistol to the right rear wheel of the Volkswagen.
That's the type of weapon that killed the officer. I saw it and I told the cops where to retrieve the weapon.
This story has had many twists and turns, according to the police, D.A., and prosecutor's office. None of what they stated is true. As I said, I saw the whole thing as it happened and it was not the way they said. They concocted a story, and put it on paper and the whole world believed what they said. I was told to keep quiet by the police, by Mr. Jamal's attorneys, and people on the street that I had always confided in. No one wanted to lose their business or their jobs. So I was left alone, by myself with this burden of "who will listen to me?" In the city of Philly I was a loner or the "Crazy Nigger" that won't shut up. But when we would be alone or with some brothers that truly believed that Mumia was innocent, guided me through turbulent times.
I came through by moving time after time and taking low-paying jobs to support my family. My family even turned their backs. I lost everything I owned just for telling the truth. I never knew people could be so mean; I am talking about professional people. I watched those cops turn into pure animals when they did their dance around Mr. Jamal. They beat him and kicked him, spit on him, called him nigger and violated all of his civil rights. Every one of those cops on the scene took part in the beating and the little dirty dance they did.
Mr. Jamal cried and begged them to stop because he had been shot, but they continued to punch, kick, and beat him with their blackjacks until he was unable to move on his own power. They then picked him up and tried to split his body on a "No Parking" sign. At this point he was too weak to say anything. The cops kept chanting, "Ramp, Ramp, Ramp" in reference to an officer that was slain at an early Move confrontation. This was a retribution for his reporting of that incident.
I don't know about all the ins and outs of this case. But what I do know is that Mumia Abu-Jamal did not shoot Police Officer Daniel Faulkner. Mr. Jamal was savagely beaten by the Philadelphia police. The whooping of Mr. Jamal makes Rodney King's beating look like a picnic. I mean I have traveled the world, been in a war zone, and come home to witness this barbaric, savage, animal-like beating of another human being. These are sworn officers of the law, all white, not one black. They know what I saw and I've been threatened ever since. Not to the point of bodily harm, but to the point of the loss of my businesses and all my friends.
When I speak of this I sometimes shiver to think of all the pain he suffered at the hands of people who were sworn to serve and protect. I would just like to say I am not crazy or fantasizing about anything. What I said is the whole truth. I am glad to have you all listen and speak to whomever to give this man a new trial. I was never called to the first trial so maybe I will be called to the next one. I am a Vietnam Veteran; I did receive a purple heart for wounds received in combat. I received an honorable discharge. I successfully ran legit businesses in Philly before I was "ran out of town."
Hopefully there is someone within the sound of my voice that can reach out and help these twenty-five years of hell to be brought to some kind of closure. As I said and keep saying, "Mumia Abu-Jamal is an innocent man."
I was there and I said what I saw. So please continue to support him however you may.
Thank you. "Peace brothers and sisters"
Signed,
William Singletary
Singletary says he is perhaps the only true witness to the events of the early morning hours of December 9th, 1981, at 13th and Locust streets in Philadelphia, at which radio journalist and former Black Panther Mumia Abu-Jamal was beaten, and fingered by police for the murder of a police officer. Singletary was never called to testify at the rigged and racist charade, which is sometimes referred to as Mumia's1982 trial.
Singletary insists that Mumia Abu-Jamal did not even arrive on the scene until after the officer was shot, and did not in any way participate in the shooting. Mumia himself was a victim, having been shot and then viciously attacked by white Philadelphia cops.
The hearing on May 17th may be Mumia's last. It concerns only a few issues out of a great many outstanding questions in this case, most of which have never been heard in court. The evidence shows that Mumia is innocent, and the statement below is just one of the many proofs of that fact. Rallies in solidarity with Mumia Abu-Jamal are being held in Philadelphia, New York, Chicago, San Francsco and San Jose California, as well as London, Toronto, Amsterdam, and others internationally.
(for a photocopy of the original signed statement, send a request by email to: LACFreeMumia@aol.com.)
Good-morning/Afternoon;
My name is William Singletary. I am an eye-witness to the murder or assassination of Police Officer Daniel Faulkner on December 9, 1981, in the early morning hours at 13th and Locust Street in Philadelphia, PA.
Mumia Abu-Jamal did not shoot Daniel Faulkner. I stood as close as 12 to 15 feet when Officer Faulkner was killed. When two bullets were viciously pumped into Officer Faulkner, the shooter then looked into my direction.
We locked eyes for a few seconds. His stare was like a thousand ice picks aiming for my heart. I slowly backed up; we never unlocked eyes until he flung the 22 caliber pistol to the right rear wheel of the Volkswagen.
That's the type of weapon that killed the officer. I saw it and I told the cops where to retrieve the weapon.
This story has had many twists and turns, according to the police, D.A., and prosecutor's office. None of what they stated is true. As I said, I saw the whole thing as it happened and it was not the way they said. They concocted a story, and put it on paper and the whole world believed what they said. I was told to keep quiet by the police, by Mr. Jamal's attorneys, and people on the street that I had always confided in. No one wanted to lose their business or their jobs. So I was left alone, by myself with this burden of "who will listen to me?" In the city of Philly I was a loner or the "Crazy Nigger" that won't shut up. But when we would be alone or with some brothers that truly believed that Mumia was innocent, guided me through turbulent times.
I came through by moving time after time and taking low-paying jobs to support my family. My family even turned their backs. I lost everything I owned just for telling the truth. I never knew people could be so mean; I am talking about professional people. I watched those cops turn into pure animals when they did their dance around Mr. Jamal. They beat him and kicked him, spit on him, called him nigger and violated all of his civil rights. Every one of those cops on the scene took part in the beating and the little dirty dance they did.
Mr. Jamal cried and begged them to stop because he had been shot, but they continued to punch, kick, and beat him with their blackjacks until he was unable to move on his own power. They then picked him up and tried to split his body on a "No Parking" sign. At this point he was too weak to say anything. The cops kept chanting, "Ramp, Ramp, Ramp" in reference to an officer that was slain at an early Move confrontation. This was a retribution for his reporting of that incident.
I don't know about all the ins and outs of this case. But what I do know is that Mumia Abu-Jamal did not shoot Police Officer Daniel Faulkner. Mr. Jamal was savagely beaten by the Philadelphia police. The whooping of Mr. Jamal makes Rodney King's beating look like a picnic. I mean I have traveled the world, been in a war zone, and come home to witness this barbaric, savage, animal-like beating of another human being. These are sworn officers of the law, all white, not one black. They know what I saw and I've been threatened ever since. Not to the point of bodily harm, but to the point of the loss of my businesses and all my friends.
When I speak of this I sometimes shiver to think of all the pain he suffered at the hands of people who were sworn to serve and protect. I would just like to say I am not crazy or fantasizing about anything. What I said is the whole truth. I am glad to have you all listen and speak to whomever to give this man a new trial. I was never called to the first trial so maybe I will be called to the next one. I am a Vietnam Veteran; I did receive a purple heart for wounds received in combat. I received an honorable discharge. I successfully ran legit businesses in Philly before I was "ran out of town."
Hopefully there is someone within the sound of my voice that can reach out and help these twenty-five years of hell to be brought to some kind of closure. As I said and keep saying, "Mumia Abu-Jamal is an innocent man."
I was there and I said what I saw. So please continue to support him however you may.
Thank you. "Peace brothers and sisters"
Signed,
William Singletary
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)