http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/17047631.html
By Emilie Lounsberry
INQUIRER STAFF WRITER
In a major victory for world-famous death-row inmate Mumia Abu-Jamal, a federal appeals court today refused to reinstate his death sentence for the 1981 murder of Philadelphia Police Officer Daniel Faulkner.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that Abu-Jamal must be sentenced to life in prison or get a chance with a new Philadelphia jury, which would decide only whether he should get life in prison or be sentenced - again - to death.
The judges left intact his first-degree murder conviction, rejecting Abu-Jamal's claim that he deserves an entirely new trial and a chance to prove his innocence.
Abu-Jamal, who has written books and given taped speeches from death row, was convicted in 1982 by a Philadelphia jury of killing Faulkner, who was shot to death near 13th and Locust Streets in the early morning hours of Dec. 9, 1981.
The Third Circuit upheld, in all respects, the 2001 decision by U.S. District Judge William H. Yohn Jr., who rejected all but one of Abu-Jamal's legal claims, but threw out the jury's death sentence.
Yohn ruled that the jury in Abu-Jamal's 1982 trial may have mistakenly believed it had to agree unanimously on any "mitigating" circumstances -- factors that might have persuaded jurors to decide on a life sentence instead of death.
The appeals court affirmed that decision, and said that the state has six months to hold a new sentencing hearing for Abu-Jamal, or he must be sentenced to life in prison.
"The jury instructions and the verdict form created a reasonable likelihood that the jury believed it was precluded from finding a mitigating circumstance that had not been unanimously agreed upon," wrote Chief Judge Anthony J. Scirica in the 77-page opinion.
Judge Thomas L. Ambro wrote that he would have gone further than his two colleagues, and granted a hearing on Abu-Jamal's contention that the prosecution unfairly excluded blacks from his jury in violation of a 1986 U.S. Supreme Court case, Batson v. Kentucky.
"To move past the prima facie case is not to throw open the jailhouse doors and overturn Abu-Jamal's conviction," wrote Ambro. "It is merely to take the next step in deciding whether race was impermissibly considered during jury selection."
Abu-Jamal's lawyer, Robert R. Bryan of San Francisco, said yesterday that he was pleased that the death sentence was not reinstated, as prosecutors had wanted. But he expressed disappointment that only Ambro had wanted to grant relief on the claim that blacks were intentionally excluded from the jury.
"I am not happy that two of the three judges turned a deaf ear to the racism that permeated this case," said Bryan, who said he was "heartened and thrilled" by Ambro's dissent on that issue.
There was no immediate response from the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office. A spokeswoman said she expected District Attorney Lynne Abraham to hold a news conference later today.
Other Abu-Jamal supporters were unhappy with the ruling. They said rallies were being planned for as early as tomorrow outside federal courthouses in Philadelphia, New York and San Francisco.
"This was no victory, in any sense of the word," said Pam Africa, a member of the radical group MOVE.
"Today's decision is a travesty of justice," said Jeff Mackler, of Mobilization to Free Mumia Abu-Jamal. He said he had been hoping that the Third Circuit would order an entirely new trial based on the claim about racial discrimination in jury selection.
Mackler said he anticipates worldwide reaction to the disappointing decision. "Tomorrow is just an initial reaction," he said.
An appeal is virtually certain.
Either side could ask the panel to reconsider the decision, ask the entire Third Circuit to consider the case, or eventually ask the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene.
Friday, March 28, 2008
NEW TRIAL DENIED FOR MUMIA, SENTENCING HEARING GRANTED, MASS RALLY IN NYC!
THE THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAS RULED AGAINST A NEW TRIAL FOR MUMIA ABU-JAMAL. THEY HAVE CALLED FOR A SENTENCING HEARING WHICH CAN RESULT IN EITHER AN EXECUTION OR LIFE IN PRISON WITHOUT PAROLE.
DAY AFTER PLANS ARE IN EFFECT
WE WILL BE PROTESTING THIS DEVESTATING DECISION IMMEDIATLY!
TODAY (FRIDAY) 3/28
NEW YORK CITY
ADAM CLAYTON POWELL STATE OFFICE BUILDING
(125th STREET AND ADAM CLAYTON POWELL JR BLVD)
5PM
AT 7:15PM THERE WILL BE AN ORGANIZING MEETING AT SAINT MARY'S CHURCH ON 126 STREET BETWEEN OLD BROADWAY AND AMSTERDAM
THERE WILL BE A MASSIVE PROTEST IN PHILADELPHIA ON APRIL 26
MORE INFORMATION WILL BE POSTED PROMPTLY!
SPREAD FAR AND WIDE!
MOBILIZE FOR MUMIA'S LIFE!
FREE MUMIA ABU-JAMAL AND ALL POLITICAL PRISONERS!
DAY AFTER PLANS ARE IN EFFECT
WE WILL BE PROTESTING THIS DEVESTATING DECISION IMMEDIATLY!
TODAY (FRIDAY) 3/28
NEW YORK CITY
ADAM CLAYTON POWELL STATE OFFICE BUILDING
(125th STREET AND ADAM CLAYTON POWELL JR BLVD)
5PM
AT 7:15PM THERE WILL BE AN ORGANIZING MEETING AT SAINT MARY'S CHURCH ON 126 STREET BETWEEN OLD BROADWAY AND AMSTERDAM
THERE WILL BE A MASSIVE PROTEST IN PHILADELPHIA ON APRIL 26
MORE INFORMATION WILL BE POSTED PROMPTLY!
SPREAD FAR AND WIDE!
MOBILIZE FOR MUMIA'S LIFE!
FREE MUMIA ABU-JAMAL AND ALL POLITICAL PRISONERS!
Monday, March 10, 2008
Mumia Abu-Jamal - Legal Update
Dear Friends:
This is an update on the case of my client, Mumia Abu-Jamal, who has been on Pennsylvania's death row for over a quarter of a century.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Philadelphia: We continue to await the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. I am in contact with the court, and will alert everyone immediately upon the issuance of a ruling. Oral argument was on May 17, 2007, thus people ask why the court is taking so long. This is a highly complex case involving issues of great constitutional significance and a voluminous amount of material. In three decades of successfully defending people in numerous murder cases involving the death penalty, I have not seen one more complicated.
It is impossible to know how the federal court will rule, but the briefing and arguments could not have gone better even though there have been problems due to mistakes by prior counsel. If the federal court follows the mandate of the U.S. Constitution, the decision should be favorable. However, Mumia's remains in jeopardy because courts are so unpredictable.
The pending issues, as set out in our federal briefing, are:
a. Whether Mr. Abu-Jamal was denied the right to due process of law and a fair trial under the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments because of the prosecutor's "appeal-after-appeal" argument which encouraged the jury to disregard the presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt, and err on the side of guilt.
b. Whether the prosecution's use of peremptory challenges to exclude African Americans from sitting on the jury violated Mr. Abu-Jamal's rights to due process and equal protection of the law under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, and contravened Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986).
c. Whether the verdict form and jury instructions that resulted in the death penalty deprived Mr. Abu-Jamal of rights guaranteed by the Eight and Fourteenth Amendments to due process of law, equal protection of the law, and not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, and violated Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367 (1988), since the judge precluded the
jurors from considering any mitigating evidence unless they all agreed on the existence of a particular circumstance.
d. Whether Mr. Abu-Jamal was denied due process and equal protection of the law under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments during post-conviction hearings as the result of the bias and racism of Judge Albert F. Sabo which included the comment that he was "going to help'em fry the n----r." There are many scenarios of how the federal court might rule. Among these are: (1) grant an entirely new jury trial; (2) order a new jury trial limited to the issue of life or death; (3) remand the case back to the U.S. District Court for further proceedings; or (4) deny everything, thereby leaving the death judgment intact.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court: For over two years we have been litigating issues in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court regarding the prosecution falsely manipulating eyewitness testimony and fabricating evidence. Recently the court denied relief. (Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, ___ A.2d ___, 2008 WL 434567 (Pa. Feb. 19, 2008).) Mumia and I talked just after the ruling on
February 19, and I then issued the following public statement:
"Mumia and I had a long conference this afternoon, shortly after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court made its ruling. We were not surprised since that court has a history of not addressing the racism and fraud that has dominated the prosecution since its inception over a quarter of a century ago. By dismissing the appeal on procedural grounds, the court avoided dealing with the compelling facts establishing that the prosecution of my client was based upon lies, half-truths, and bigotry. It is sad that the state court used possible mistakes of the previous lawyers in the case as an excuse to dodge the truth.
This state ruling has no bearing on the proceedings pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. If the federal decision is favorable, then the Pennsylvania Supreme Court judgment will be moot. Otherwise, I plan to seek relief in the U.S. Supreme Court. I will not rest until Mumia is free."
Germany: On January 12, 2008, I spoke on behalf of Mumia at the annual Rosa Luxemburg Conference in Berlin. As I concluded, the thousands in attendance gave a long and enthusiastic ovation. It was a nice tribute to my client who has become a symbol in the international struggle against the death penalty and human-rights abuses. Mumia asks that I convey his gratitude to the many good people in Germany who work so tirelessly for justice. These include especially his longtime German publisher and confidant Jurgen Heiser, the human-rights attorney Eberhard Schultz, Sabine Schubert, Petra Siemering, Victor Grossman, George and Doris Pumphrey, the distinguished actor Rolf Becker, the renowned Berlin filmmaker Thomas Giefer, the prominent writer Sabine Kebir, and German PEN.
France: Professor Claude Guillaumaud-Pujol has written an excellent book, Mumia Abu-Jamal, un homme libre dans le couloir de la mort, which was published late last year. It has Mumia's endorsement, and has sold well. Claude has donated the proceeds from her book to help the defense of Mumia in our struggle for his freedom. The author represents the highest
standard in the movement for she is totally committed to justice and the freedom of Mumia, and does not seek to exploit my client. Mumia expresses his gratitude to Claude, Jacky Hortaut, Mireille Mendes-France, Jacques Lederer, the Collectif Unitaire National de Soutien à Mumia Abu-Jamal, Senator Nicole Borvo Cohen-Seat, the Paris Bar, and the many others in France who have done so much.
England: Mumia asked that I also thank Niki Adams, the legendary Selma James, and their colleagues at the Legal Action for Women, London, for their ongoing work on behalf of justice not only in England but throughout the world. I am particularly indebted for their extraordinary commitment that has resulted in programs on Mumia in the Inns of Court and other British venues, a petition for justice and a new trial signed by over 100 prominent lawyers there, and drawning public attention to the injustice in this case. And, of course, the efforts of Ian Mcdonald QC, Garden Court North Chambers, an outstanding barrister and friend, have been significant.
In Prison My Whole Life, British film: The new documentary film on Mumia, In Prison My Whole Life, has been shown at a number of prestigious film festivals, e.g., International Film Festival & Forum on Human Rights, Geneva, Switzerland; Sundance Film Festival; Belfast Film Festival; London Film Festival; Rome Film Festival; Copenhagen International Film Festival; Dublin International Film Festival. It was also recently screened by members of the House of Commons, London. Mumia and I are grateful to Colin and Livia Firth, and their associates, for having the courage to make this extraordinary film. They have my full support and that of my client, for this worthwhile film which deals with the larger issues of the death penalty, racism and injustice.
Donations in the United States for Mumia's Legal Defense: With Mumia's authorization, a process exists which guarantees that U.S. donations go only to the legal defense, and are tax-deductible. Checks should be made payable to the National Lawyers Guild Foundation (indicate "Mumia" on the bottom left), and mailed to:
Committee To Save Mumia Abu-Jamal
P.O. Box 2012
New York, NY 10159-2012
Conclusion: The issues in this case concern the right to a fair trial, the struggle against the death penalty, and the political repression of a courageous writer and journalist. My goal is to win a new and fair trial for Mumia, and a jury acquittal upon his retrial. I want him to go home to his family. Nevertheless, Mumia is in great danger, for if all is lost he will be executed. We must never forget that racism, fraud, and politics are threads that have run through this case since the beginning and continue today.
Your interest is appreciated.
Cordially yours,
Robert R. Bryan
Law Offices of Robert R. Bryan
2088 Union Street, Suite 4
San Francisco, California 94123-4117
Lead counsel for Mumia Abu-Jamal
This is an update on the case of my client, Mumia Abu-Jamal, who has been on Pennsylvania's death row for over a quarter of a century.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Philadelphia: We continue to await the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. I am in contact with the court, and will alert everyone immediately upon the issuance of a ruling. Oral argument was on May 17, 2007, thus people ask why the court is taking so long. This is a highly complex case involving issues of great constitutional significance and a voluminous amount of material. In three decades of successfully defending people in numerous murder cases involving the death penalty, I have not seen one more complicated.
It is impossible to know how the federal court will rule, but the briefing and arguments could not have gone better even though there have been problems due to mistakes by prior counsel. If the federal court follows the mandate of the U.S. Constitution, the decision should be favorable. However, Mumia's remains in jeopardy because courts are so unpredictable.
The pending issues, as set out in our federal briefing, are:
a. Whether Mr. Abu-Jamal was denied the right to due process of law and a fair trial under the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments because of the prosecutor's "appeal-after-appeal" argument which encouraged the jury to disregard the presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt, and err on the side of guilt.
b. Whether the prosecution's use of peremptory challenges to exclude African Americans from sitting on the jury violated Mr. Abu-Jamal's rights to due process and equal protection of the law under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, and contravened Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986).
c. Whether the verdict form and jury instructions that resulted in the death penalty deprived Mr. Abu-Jamal of rights guaranteed by the Eight and Fourteenth Amendments to due process of law, equal protection of the law, and not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, and violated Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367 (1988), since the judge precluded the
jurors from considering any mitigating evidence unless they all agreed on the existence of a particular circumstance.
d. Whether Mr. Abu-Jamal was denied due process and equal protection of the law under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments during post-conviction hearings as the result of the bias and racism of Judge Albert F. Sabo which included the comment that he was "going to help'em fry the n----r." There are many scenarios of how the federal court might rule. Among these are: (1) grant an entirely new jury trial; (2) order a new jury trial limited to the issue of life or death; (3) remand the case back to the U.S. District Court for further proceedings; or (4) deny everything, thereby leaving the death judgment intact.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court: For over two years we have been litigating issues in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court regarding the prosecution falsely manipulating eyewitness testimony and fabricating evidence. Recently the court denied relief. (Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, ___ A.2d ___, 2008 WL 434567 (Pa. Feb. 19, 2008).) Mumia and I talked just after the ruling on
February 19, and I then issued the following public statement:
"Mumia and I had a long conference this afternoon, shortly after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court made its ruling. We were not surprised since that court has a history of not addressing the racism and fraud that has dominated the prosecution since its inception over a quarter of a century ago. By dismissing the appeal on procedural grounds, the court avoided dealing with the compelling facts establishing that the prosecution of my client was based upon lies, half-truths, and bigotry. It is sad that the state court used possible mistakes of the previous lawyers in the case as an excuse to dodge the truth.
This state ruling has no bearing on the proceedings pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. If the federal decision is favorable, then the Pennsylvania Supreme Court judgment will be moot. Otherwise, I plan to seek relief in the U.S. Supreme Court. I will not rest until Mumia is free."
Germany: On January 12, 2008, I spoke on behalf of Mumia at the annual Rosa Luxemburg Conference in Berlin. As I concluded, the thousands in attendance gave a long and enthusiastic ovation. It was a nice tribute to my client who has become a symbol in the international struggle against the death penalty and human-rights abuses. Mumia asks that I convey his gratitude to the many good people in Germany who work so tirelessly for justice. These include especially his longtime German publisher and confidant Jurgen Heiser, the human-rights attorney Eberhard Schultz, Sabine Schubert, Petra Siemering, Victor Grossman, George and Doris Pumphrey, the distinguished actor Rolf Becker, the renowned Berlin filmmaker Thomas Giefer, the prominent writer Sabine Kebir, and German PEN.
France: Professor Claude Guillaumaud-Pujol has written an excellent book, Mumia Abu-Jamal, un homme libre dans le couloir de la mort, which was published late last year. It has Mumia's endorsement, and has sold well. Claude has donated the proceeds from her book to help the defense of Mumia in our struggle for his freedom. The author represents the highest
standard in the movement for she is totally committed to justice and the freedom of Mumia, and does not seek to exploit my client. Mumia expresses his gratitude to Claude, Jacky Hortaut, Mireille Mendes-France, Jacques Lederer, the Collectif Unitaire National de Soutien à Mumia Abu-Jamal, Senator Nicole Borvo Cohen-Seat, the Paris Bar, and the many others in France who have done so much.
England: Mumia asked that I also thank Niki Adams, the legendary Selma James, and their colleagues at the Legal Action for Women, London, for their ongoing work on behalf of justice not only in England but throughout the world. I am particularly indebted for their extraordinary commitment that has resulted in programs on Mumia in the Inns of Court and other British venues, a petition for justice and a new trial signed by over 100 prominent lawyers there, and drawning public attention to the injustice in this case. And, of course, the efforts of Ian Mcdonald QC, Garden Court North Chambers, an outstanding barrister and friend, have been significant.
In Prison My Whole Life, British film: The new documentary film on Mumia, In Prison My Whole Life, has been shown at a number of prestigious film festivals, e.g., International Film Festival & Forum on Human Rights, Geneva, Switzerland; Sundance Film Festival; Belfast Film Festival; London Film Festival; Rome Film Festival; Copenhagen International Film Festival; Dublin International Film Festival. It was also recently screened by members of the House of Commons, London. Mumia and I are grateful to Colin and Livia Firth, and their associates, for having the courage to make this extraordinary film. They have my full support and that of my client, for this worthwhile film which deals with the larger issues of the death penalty, racism and injustice.
Donations in the United States for Mumia's Legal Defense: With Mumia's authorization, a process exists which guarantees that U.S. donations go only to the legal defense, and are tax-deductible. Checks should be made payable to the National Lawyers Guild Foundation (indicate "Mumia" on the bottom left), and mailed to:
Committee To Save Mumia Abu-Jamal
P.O. Box 2012
New York, NY 10159-2012
Conclusion: The issues in this case concern the right to a fair trial, the struggle against the death penalty, and the political repression of a courageous writer and journalist. My goal is to win a new and fair trial for Mumia, and a jury acquittal upon his retrial. I want him to go home to his family. Nevertheless, Mumia is in great danger, for if all is lost he will be executed. We must never forget that racism, fraud, and politics are threads that have run through this case since the beginning and continue today.
Your interest is appreciated.
Cordially yours,
Robert R. Bryan
Law Offices of Robert R. Bryan
2088 Union Street, Suite 4
San Francisco, California 94123-4117
Lead counsel for Mumia Abu-Jamal
MOVE members due for parole hearing
By Emilie Lounsberry
Inquirer Staff Writer
Seven MOVE members who have been behind bars since 1978 for their part in the shoot-out that killed Philadelphia Police Officer James Ramp and injured seven others are up for parole soon - amid a swell of opposition from police and prosecutors.
The seven are scheduled for parole interviews in April, and it will then be up to the state Board of Probation and Parole to decide whether they would be able to walk out of prison. Five of nine votes would be required for parole to be granted.
"I don't think they should ever get out," said Thomas Hesson, 69, a retired police officer who was shot in the chest in the Aug. 8, 1978, confrontation. His wounds, he added, nearly cost him his life and ruined his career.
The Philadelphia District Attorney's Office also has weighed in, urging the board to require the defendants to serve the maximum of their 30- to 100-year prison terms.
"They got 30 to 100 for a reason," Deputy District Attorney John Delaney said yesterday.
He said he wrote a letter to the board asking in the "strongest possible terms" that parole be denied.
The seven were among nine MOVE members convicted in a 19-week trial in 1980 that, at the time, was the longest and most expensive in Pennsylvania history. An eighth defendant will be eligible for parole next year and a ninth died in prison.
All nine were found guilty of third-degree murder in the shooting death of Ramp, and the attempted murders of the others shot and injured that day, when police tried to evict 12 adults and 11 children from their headquarters at 33d and Pearl Streets in Powelton Village.
Prosecutors contended there was no doubt the fatal shot came from inside the MOVE house because a ballistics match between a weapon found in the house and bullet fragments in Ramp's body proved that the rifle killed him.
As Common Pleas Judge Edwin S. Malmed sentenced them, the defendants shouted obscenities at him.
The seven with scheduled parole interviews in April are: Delbert Orr Africa, Edward Goodman Africa, William Phillips Africa, Michael Davis Africa, Janet Hollaway Africa, Jeanene Phillips Africa and Debbie Sims Africa. Charles Sims Africa probably will have an interview in November; his minimum date is in February 2009.
They are held in state prisons across Pennsylvania, including Graterford and Dallas.
The 1978 confrontation was a pivotal moment in the city's torturous history with the radical group and ultimately set the stage for another disastrous event - the May 1985 conflagration that killed 11 MOVE members, including five children, and destroyed 62 houses along Osage Avenue. The 11 were killed after police dropped an incendiary device on the MOVE compound and decided to let it burn.
If released, some of the defendants might have some money waiting for them.
In 1990, the city agreed to pay $2.5 million to end a lawsuit brought by parents of the five children who died in the May 13, 1985, siege - including Delbert Orr Africa and Janet Holloway Africa for the death of their daughter, Delisha, 12; and William Phillips Africa and Jeanene Phillips Africa for the death of their son, Philip Delmar, 12.
Offenders are usually interviewed for parole consideration three months before they reach their minimum sentence. Parole can be granted at any time between the minimum and the maximum sentence. Over the course of the last year, the board granted parole in 61 percent of the cases it considered.
MOVE - which started out as a back-to-nature organization but which is known more for generating support for people it believes have become political prisoners - is not an acronym, and all members use the surname Africa.
Members of the group have long railed against the conviction of the nine, saying that prosecutors were never able to prove who fired the fatal shot.
MOVE member Ramona Africa said yesterday that she hoped the parole board doesn't force them to serve their maximums.
"There's no reason at all for them not to be paroled," said Africa, who served her maximum prison sentence related to charges filed after the 1985 MOVE bombing.
"We have no confidence in this system," she said. "Of course they want to come home. They've been away from their family for 30 years. But we never expect anything right from this system."
Paul Hetznecker, the lawyer who represented the MOVE members for years, said he hoped they would be paroled.
"It would be outrageous not to be released after all these years," Hetznecker said, adding that there was a "lack of evidence presented during the trial," especially about the three female defendants, who he said were in the basement trying to protect children during the confrontation.
But the city's law enforcement community hopes all the defendants will remain behind bars.
Michael G. Lutz, vice president of Lodge 5 of the Philadelphia Fraternal Order of Police, wrote a letter to the board urging that parole be rejected.
In the letter, Lutz evoked the memory of Ramp and also cited the three other officers who were shot and injured.
"May the courage of these officers never become a faded memory of the past, nor may the courage of Police Officer James Ramp be forever sealed in the silence of death," he wrote in the letter, which is on the FOP Web site.
Hesson, the retired officer wounded in the encounter that killed Ramp, said that even so many years later, the events remain unforgettable. "It never leaves your mind," he said.
See more photos from the first MOVE confrontation at http://go.philly.com/move
Contact staff writer Emilie Lounsberry at 215-854-4828 or elounsberry@phillynews.com.
Inquirer Staff Writer
Seven MOVE members who have been behind bars since 1978 for their part in the shoot-out that killed Philadelphia Police Officer James Ramp and injured seven others are up for parole soon - amid a swell of opposition from police and prosecutors.
The seven are scheduled for parole interviews in April, and it will then be up to the state Board of Probation and Parole to decide whether they would be able to walk out of prison. Five of nine votes would be required for parole to be granted.
"I don't think they should ever get out," said Thomas Hesson, 69, a retired police officer who was shot in the chest in the Aug. 8, 1978, confrontation. His wounds, he added, nearly cost him his life and ruined his career.
The Philadelphia District Attorney's Office also has weighed in, urging the board to require the defendants to serve the maximum of their 30- to 100-year prison terms.
"They got 30 to 100 for a reason," Deputy District Attorney John Delaney said yesterday.
He said he wrote a letter to the board asking in the "strongest possible terms" that parole be denied.
The seven were among nine MOVE members convicted in a 19-week trial in 1980 that, at the time, was the longest and most expensive in Pennsylvania history. An eighth defendant will be eligible for parole next year and a ninth died in prison.
All nine were found guilty of third-degree murder in the shooting death of Ramp, and the attempted murders of the others shot and injured that day, when police tried to evict 12 adults and 11 children from their headquarters at 33d and Pearl Streets in Powelton Village.
Prosecutors contended there was no doubt the fatal shot came from inside the MOVE house because a ballistics match between a weapon found in the house and bullet fragments in Ramp's body proved that the rifle killed him.
As Common Pleas Judge Edwin S. Malmed sentenced them, the defendants shouted obscenities at him.
The seven with scheduled parole interviews in April are: Delbert Orr Africa, Edward Goodman Africa, William Phillips Africa, Michael Davis Africa, Janet Hollaway Africa, Jeanene Phillips Africa and Debbie Sims Africa. Charles Sims Africa probably will have an interview in November; his minimum date is in February 2009.
They are held in state prisons across Pennsylvania, including Graterford and Dallas.
The 1978 confrontation was a pivotal moment in the city's torturous history with the radical group and ultimately set the stage for another disastrous event - the May 1985 conflagration that killed 11 MOVE members, including five children, and destroyed 62 houses along Osage Avenue. The 11 were killed after police dropped an incendiary device on the MOVE compound and decided to let it burn.
If released, some of the defendants might have some money waiting for them.
In 1990, the city agreed to pay $2.5 million to end a lawsuit brought by parents of the five children who died in the May 13, 1985, siege - including Delbert Orr Africa and Janet Holloway Africa for the death of their daughter, Delisha, 12; and William Phillips Africa and Jeanene Phillips Africa for the death of their son, Philip Delmar, 12.
Offenders are usually interviewed for parole consideration three months before they reach their minimum sentence. Parole can be granted at any time between the minimum and the maximum sentence. Over the course of the last year, the board granted parole in 61 percent of the cases it considered.
MOVE - which started out as a back-to-nature organization but which is known more for generating support for people it believes have become political prisoners - is not an acronym, and all members use the surname Africa.
Members of the group have long railed against the conviction of the nine, saying that prosecutors were never able to prove who fired the fatal shot.
MOVE member Ramona Africa said yesterday that she hoped the parole board doesn't force them to serve their maximums.
"There's no reason at all for them not to be paroled," said Africa, who served her maximum prison sentence related to charges filed after the 1985 MOVE bombing.
"We have no confidence in this system," she said. "Of course they want to come home. They've been away from their family for 30 years. But we never expect anything right from this system."
Paul Hetznecker, the lawyer who represented the MOVE members for years, said he hoped they would be paroled.
"It would be outrageous not to be released after all these years," Hetznecker said, adding that there was a "lack of evidence presented during the trial," especially about the three female defendants, who he said were in the basement trying to protect children during the confrontation.
But the city's law enforcement community hopes all the defendants will remain behind bars.
Michael G. Lutz, vice president of Lodge 5 of the Philadelphia Fraternal Order of Police, wrote a letter to the board urging that parole be rejected.
In the letter, Lutz evoked the memory of Ramp and also cited the three other officers who were shot and injured.
"May the courage of these officers never become a faded memory of the past, nor may the courage of Police Officer James Ramp be forever sealed in the silence of death," he wrote in the letter, which is on the FOP Web site.
Hesson, the retired officer wounded in the encounter that killed Ramp, said that even so many years later, the events remain unforgettable. "It never leaves your mind," he said.
See more photos from the first MOVE confrontation at http://go.philly.com/move
Contact staff writer Emilie Lounsberry at 215-854-4828 or elounsberry@phillynews.com.
Friday, March 07, 2008
Call, Sign Petition, and Write a Letter for The MOVE 9!
From MOVE 9 Parole Website
SIGN THE PETITION / DOWNLOAD SAMPLE LETTER
Almost 30 years after their 1978 imprisonment, the eight remaining "MOVE 9" prisoners are now eligible for parole. April hearings are scheduled for Chuck, Debbie, Delbert, Eddie, Janet, Janine, Mike, and Phil Africa. In early April, they will be interviewed on an individual basis, and ultimately a majority 5/9 vote among the nine Parole Board Members will be needed for each prisoner's release on parole.
At this urgent time, MOVE is asking for support by writing letters, making telephone calls (717-787-5699), and signing the online petition that will be delivered to the Board later this month.
Along with Chairman Catherine C. McVey, the other eight Parole Board Members are Charles Fox, Michael L. Green, Jeffrey R. Imboden, Matthew T. Mangino, Benjamin A. Martinez, Gerard N. Massaro, Judy Viglione, Lloyd A. White.
It is best for individuals to personally send a letter to Chairman McVey, and if folks have the resources, to also send a copy to each of the other eight board members, at the same address.
[name of Board member]
Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole
1101 South Front Street, Suite #5100
Harrisburg, PA 17104-2517
(717) 787-5699
WEBSITE
However, if individuals lack the resources, the letter can be sent to:
Journalists for Mumia Abu-Jamal
PO Box 30770
Philadelphia, PA, 19104
We will then send a copy of your letter to all Board Members and also each of the eight MOVE prisoners (so they can present the support letters to their interviewers).
These next few weeks are crucial. Please spread the word and help in any way you can!
For the latest news about the MOVE 9 Parole campaign, please visit:
move9parole.blogspot.com
onamove.com
Abu-Jamal-News.com
Below is a sample letter for writing the Parole Board. Feel free to personalize your letter, but please keep it polite and respectful.
SAMPLE LETTER(download as word file):
Regarding: 2008 Parole of Eight Prisoners:
Debbie Sims Africa #006307, Janet Holloway Africa #006308, Janine Phillips Africa #006309, Michael Davis Africa #AM-4973, Charles Sims Africa #AM-4975, William Phillips Africa #AM-4984, Delbert Orr Africa #AM-4985, and Edward Goodman Africa #AM-4974
Catherine C. McVey
Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole
1101 South Front Street, Suite #5100
Harrisburg, PA 17104-2517
Dear Mrs. McVey,
Please parole Chuck, Debbie, Delbert, Eddie, Janet, Janine, Mike, and Phil Africa this year. They have not caused any major disciplinary problems during the past three decades. They have spent most of their lives in prison; please allow them to be a part of, and contribute to, society as free citizens.
There are many around the world, who have different reasons for supporting parole for these eight prisoners.
--The sentencing judge stated publicly that he did not have the faintest idea who shot the one bullet that killed Officer Ramp. Nine people cannot fire one bullet.
--Many supporters of parole feel that Officer Ramp was actually shot by police "friendly fire," because it would have been ballistically impossible for MOVE to have shot Ramp, who was across the street from MOVE's house. These supporters believe that because of MOVE's position in the basement, bullets coming from there would have had an upward trajectory, yet the medical examiner testified that the bullet entered Ramp's "chest from in front and coursed horizontally without deviation up or down." Even the authenticity of official ballistics are in dispute. At a pre-trial hearing, in open court, the Judge allowed the prosecutor to literally use a pencil and eraser to change the medical examiner's report to conform with the medical examiner's testimony about the bullet's trajectory.
This theory about the bullet's trajectory could have been tested, but MOVE's house was illegally demolished (a Philadelphia judge had already signed an order barring the city from destroying the house) that very day, and police did nothing to preserve the crime scene, inscribe chalk marks, or measure ballistics angles. In a preliminary hearing on a Motion to Dismiss, MOVE unsuccessfully argued that destroying their home had prevented them from proving that it was physically impossible for MOVE to have shot Ramp.
--Yet, other supporters of parole cite the average 10-15 year sentence given for third-degree murder. MOVE prisoners have now served 2-3 times this sentence. Isn't 30 years enough? Merle Africa, who has died in prison, and these surviving eight have already paid a terrible price for what happened on that day.
Lastly, I am concerned about optional stipulations that the Parole Board may require, which I feel are unfair, and which many legal scholars feel is a violation of First-Amendment rights. In the past, as a condition for parole, MOVE prisoners have unfairly been required to renounce MOVE and their deeply held religious beliefs. I am also concerned about two other possible stipulations.
First is the "taking responsibility" stipulation, which basically asks a prisoner to admit guilt in order to be granted parole. These eight MOVE prisoners have always maintained their innocence, so it is unfair to require this of them.
Second is the "serious nature of offense" stipulation. MOVE spokesperson Ramona Africa feels that this is illegal "because the judge took this into consideration and when the sentence was issued, it meant that barring any misconduct, problems, new charges, etc. this prisoner was to be released on their minimum. To deny that is basically a re-sentence."
Please do not require these optional stipulations.
I do ask that you please grant parole to these eight prisoners so that, after 30 years, they can go home to their families.
Respectfully,
( YOUR SIGNATURE )
Your Name
Your Name
Your Address
SIGN THE PETITION / DOWNLOAD SAMPLE LETTER
Almost 30 years after their 1978 imprisonment, the eight remaining "MOVE 9" prisoners are now eligible for parole. April hearings are scheduled for Chuck, Debbie, Delbert, Eddie, Janet, Janine, Mike, and Phil Africa. In early April, they will be interviewed on an individual basis, and ultimately a majority 5/9 vote among the nine Parole Board Members will be needed for each prisoner's release on parole.
At this urgent time, MOVE is asking for support by writing letters, making telephone calls (717-787-5699), and signing the online petition that will be delivered to the Board later this month.
Along with Chairman Catherine C. McVey, the other eight Parole Board Members are Charles Fox, Michael L. Green, Jeffrey R. Imboden, Matthew T. Mangino, Benjamin A. Martinez, Gerard N. Massaro, Judy Viglione, Lloyd A. White.
It is best for individuals to personally send a letter to Chairman McVey, and if folks have the resources, to also send a copy to each of the other eight board members, at the same address.
[name of Board member]
Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole
1101 South Front Street, Suite #5100
Harrisburg, PA 17104-2517
(717) 787-5699
WEBSITE
However, if individuals lack the resources, the letter can be sent to:
Journalists for Mumia Abu-Jamal
PO Box 30770
Philadelphia, PA, 19104
We will then send a copy of your letter to all Board Members and also each of the eight MOVE prisoners (so they can present the support letters to their interviewers).
These next few weeks are crucial. Please spread the word and help in any way you can!
For the latest news about the MOVE 9 Parole campaign, please visit:
move9parole.blogspot.com
onamove.com
Abu-Jamal-News.com
Below is a sample letter for writing the Parole Board. Feel free to personalize your letter, but please keep it polite and respectful.
SAMPLE LETTER(download as word file):
Regarding: 2008 Parole of Eight Prisoners:
Debbie Sims Africa #006307, Janet Holloway Africa #006308, Janine Phillips Africa #006309, Michael Davis Africa #AM-4973, Charles Sims Africa #AM-4975, William Phillips Africa #AM-4984, Delbert Orr Africa #AM-4985, and Edward Goodman Africa #AM-4974
Catherine C. McVey
Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole
1101 South Front Street, Suite #5100
Harrisburg, PA 17104-2517
Dear Mrs. McVey,
Please parole Chuck, Debbie, Delbert, Eddie, Janet, Janine, Mike, and Phil Africa this year. They have not caused any major disciplinary problems during the past three decades. They have spent most of their lives in prison; please allow them to be a part of, and contribute to, society as free citizens.
There are many around the world, who have different reasons for supporting parole for these eight prisoners.
--The sentencing judge stated publicly that he did not have the faintest idea who shot the one bullet that killed Officer Ramp. Nine people cannot fire one bullet.
--Many supporters of parole feel that Officer Ramp was actually shot by police "friendly fire," because it would have been ballistically impossible for MOVE to have shot Ramp, who was across the street from MOVE's house. These supporters believe that because of MOVE's position in the basement, bullets coming from there would have had an upward trajectory, yet the medical examiner testified that the bullet entered Ramp's "chest from in front and coursed horizontally without deviation up or down." Even the authenticity of official ballistics are in dispute. At a pre-trial hearing, in open court, the Judge allowed the prosecutor to literally use a pencil and eraser to change the medical examiner's report to conform with the medical examiner's testimony about the bullet's trajectory.
This theory about the bullet's trajectory could have been tested, but MOVE's house was illegally demolished (a Philadelphia judge had already signed an order barring the city from destroying the house) that very day, and police did nothing to preserve the crime scene, inscribe chalk marks, or measure ballistics angles. In a preliminary hearing on a Motion to Dismiss, MOVE unsuccessfully argued that destroying their home had prevented them from proving that it was physically impossible for MOVE to have shot Ramp.
--Yet, other supporters of parole cite the average 10-15 year sentence given for third-degree murder. MOVE prisoners have now served 2-3 times this sentence. Isn't 30 years enough? Merle Africa, who has died in prison, and these surviving eight have already paid a terrible price for what happened on that day.
Lastly, I am concerned about optional stipulations that the Parole Board may require, which I feel are unfair, and which many legal scholars feel is a violation of First-Amendment rights. In the past, as a condition for parole, MOVE prisoners have unfairly been required to renounce MOVE and their deeply held religious beliefs. I am also concerned about two other possible stipulations.
First is the "taking responsibility" stipulation, which basically asks a prisoner to admit guilt in order to be granted parole. These eight MOVE prisoners have always maintained their innocence, so it is unfair to require this of them.
Second is the "serious nature of offense" stipulation. MOVE spokesperson Ramona Africa feels that this is illegal "because the judge took this into consideration and when the sentence was issued, it meant that barring any misconduct, problems, new charges, etc. this prisoner was to be released on their minimum. To deny that is basically a re-sentence."
Please do not require these optional stipulations.
I do ask that you please grant parole to these eight prisoners so that, after 30 years, they can go home to their families.
Respectfully,
( YOUR SIGNATURE )
Your Name
Your Name
Your Address
Thursday, March 06, 2008
MOVE members due for parole hearing
By Emilie Lounsberry, Inquirer Staff Writer
http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080228_MOVE_members_due_for_parole_hearing.html
Seven MOVE members who have been behind bars since 1978 for their part in the shoot-out that killed Philadelphia Police Officer James Ramp and injured seven others are up for parole soon - amid a swell of opposition from police and prosecutors.
The seven are scheduled for parole interviews in April, and it will then be up to the state Board of Probation and Parole to decide whether they would be able to walk out of prison. Five of nine votes would be required for parole to be granted.
"I don't think they should ever get out," said Thomas Hesson, 69, a retired police officer who was shot in the chest in the Aug. 8, 1978, confrontation. His wounds, he added, nearly cost him his life and ruined his career.
The Philadelphia District Attorney's Office also has weighed in, urging the board to require the defendants to serve the maximum of their 30- to 100-year prison terms.
"They got 30 to 100 for a reason," Deputy District Attorney John Delaney said yesterday.
He said he wrote a letter to the board asking in the "strongest possible terms" that parole be denied.
The seven were among nine MOVE members convicted in a 19-week trial in 1980 that, at the time, was the longest and most expensive in Pennsylvania history. An eighth defendant will be eligible for parole next year and a ninth died in prison.
All nine were found guilty of third-degree murder in the shooting death of Ramp, and the attempted murders of the others shot and injured that day, when police tried to evict 12 adults and 11 children from their headquarters at 33d and Pearl Streets in Powelton Village.
Prosecutors contended there was no doubt the fatal shot came from inside the MOVE house because a ballistics match between a weapon found in the house and bullet fragments in Ramp's body proved that the rifle killed him.
As Common Pleas Judge Edwin S. Malmed sentenced them, the defendants shouted obscenities at him.
The seven with scheduled parole interviews in April are: Delbert Orr Africa, Edward Goodman Africa, William Phillips Africa, Michael Davis Africa, Janet Hollaway Africa, Jeanene Phillips Africa and Debbie Sims Africa. Charles Sims Africa probably will have an interview in November; his minimum date is in February 2009.
They are held in state prisons across Pennsylvania, including Graterford and Dallas.
The 1978 confrontation was a pivotal moment in the city's torturous history with the radical group and ultimately set the stage for another disastrous event - the May 1985 conflagration that killed 11 MOVE members, including five children, and destroyed 62 houses along Osage Avenue. The 11 were killed after police dropped an incendiary device on the MOVE compound and decided to let it burn.
If released, some of the defendants might have some money waiting for them.
In 1990, the city agreed to pay $2.5 million to end a lawsuit brought by parents of the five children who died in the May 13, 1985, siege - including Delbert Orr Africa and Janet Holloway Africa for the death of their daughter, Delisha, 12; and William Phillips Africa and Jeanene Phillips Africa for the death of their son, Philip Delmar, 12.
Offenders are usually interviewed for parole consideration three months before they reach their minimum sentence. Parole can be granted at any time between the minimum and the maximum sentence. Over the course of the last year, the board granted parole in 61 percent of the cases it considered.
MOVE - which started out as a back-to-nature organization but which is known more for generating support for people it believes have become political prisoners - is not an acronym, and all members use the surname Africa.
Members of the group have long railed against the conviction of the nine, saying that prosecutors were never able to prove who fired the fatal shot.
MOVE member Ramona Africa said yesterday that she hoped the parole board doesn't force them to serve their maximums.
"There's no reason at all for them not to be paroled," said Africa, who served her maximum prison sentence related to charges filed after the 1985 MOVE bombing.
"We have no confidence in this system," she said. "Of course they want to come home. They've been away from their family for 30 years. But we never expect anything right from this system."
Paul Hetznecker, the lawyer who represented the MOVE members for years, said he hoped they would be paroled.
"It would be outrageous not to be released after all these years," Hetznecker said, adding that there was a "lack of evidence presented during the trial," especially about the three female defendants, who he said were in the basement trying to protect children during the confrontation.
But the city's law enforcement community hopes all the defendants will remain behind bars.
Michael G. Lutz, vice president of Lodge 5 of the Philadelphia Fraternal Order of Police, wrote a letter to the board urging that parole be rejected.
In the letter, Lutz evoked the memory of Ramp and also cited the three other officers who were shot and injured.
"May the courage of these officers never become a faded memory of the past, nor may the courage of Police Officer James Ramp be forever sealed in the silence of death," he wrote in the letter, which is on the FOP Web site.
Hesson, the retired officer wounded in the encounter that killed Ramp, said that even so many years later, the events remain unforgettable. "It never leaves your mind," he said.
See more photos from the first MOVE confrontation at http://go.philly.com/move
Contact staff writer Emilie Lounsberry at 215-854-4828 or elounsberry@phillynews.com.
http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080228_MOVE_members_due_for_parole_hearing.html
Seven MOVE members who have been behind bars since 1978 for their part in the shoot-out that killed Philadelphia Police Officer James Ramp and injured seven others are up for parole soon - amid a swell of opposition from police and prosecutors.
The seven are scheduled for parole interviews in April, and it will then be up to the state Board of Probation and Parole to decide whether they would be able to walk out of prison. Five of nine votes would be required for parole to be granted.
"I don't think they should ever get out," said Thomas Hesson, 69, a retired police officer who was shot in the chest in the Aug. 8, 1978, confrontation. His wounds, he added, nearly cost him his life and ruined his career.
The Philadelphia District Attorney's Office also has weighed in, urging the board to require the defendants to serve the maximum of their 30- to 100-year prison terms.
"They got 30 to 100 for a reason," Deputy District Attorney John Delaney said yesterday.
He said he wrote a letter to the board asking in the "strongest possible terms" that parole be denied.
The seven were among nine MOVE members convicted in a 19-week trial in 1980 that, at the time, was the longest and most expensive in Pennsylvania history. An eighth defendant will be eligible for parole next year and a ninth died in prison.
All nine were found guilty of third-degree murder in the shooting death of Ramp, and the attempted murders of the others shot and injured that day, when police tried to evict 12 adults and 11 children from their headquarters at 33d and Pearl Streets in Powelton Village.
Prosecutors contended there was no doubt the fatal shot came from inside the MOVE house because a ballistics match between a weapon found in the house and bullet fragments in Ramp's body proved that the rifle killed him.
As Common Pleas Judge Edwin S. Malmed sentenced them, the defendants shouted obscenities at him.
The seven with scheduled parole interviews in April are: Delbert Orr Africa, Edward Goodman Africa, William Phillips Africa, Michael Davis Africa, Janet Hollaway Africa, Jeanene Phillips Africa and Debbie Sims Africa. Charles Sims Africa probably will have an interview in November; his minimum date is in February 2009.
They are held in state prisons across Pennsylvania, including Graterford and Dallas.
The 1978 confrontation was a pivotal moment in the city's torturous history with the radical group and ultimately set the stage for another disastrous event - the May 1985 conflagration that killed 11 MOVE members, including five children, and destroyed 62 houses along Osage Avenue. The 11 were killed after police dropped an incendiary device on the MOVE compound and decided to let it burn.
If released, some of the defendants might have some money waiting for them.
In 1990, the city agreed to pay $2.5 million to end a lawsuit brought by parents of the five children who died in the May 13, 1985, siege - including Delbert Orr Africa and Janet Holloway Africa for the death of their daughter, Delisha, 12; and William Phillips Africa and Jeanene Phillips Africa for the death of their son, Philip Delmar, 12.
Offenders are usually interviewed for parole consideration three months before they reach their minimum sentence. Parole can be granted at any time between the minimum and the maximum sentence. Over the course of the last year, the board granted parole in 61 percent of the cases it considered.
MOVE - which started out as a back-to-nature organization but which is known more for generating support for people it believes have become political prisoners - is not an acronym, and all members use the surname Africa.
Members of the group have long railed against the conviction of the nine, saying that prosecutors were never able to prove who fired the fatal shot.
MOVE member Ramona Africa said yesterday that she hoped the parole board doesn't force them to serve their maximums.
"There's no reason at all for them not to be paroled," said Africa, who served her maximum prison sentence related to charges filed after the 1985 MOVE bombing.
"We have no confidence in this system," she said. "Of course they want to come home. They've been away from their family for 30 years. But we never expect anything right from this system."
Paul Hetznecker, the lawyer who represented the MOVE members for years, said he hoped they would be paroled.
"It would be outrageous not to be released after all these years," Hetznecker said, adding that there was a "lack of evidence presented during the trial," especially about the three female defendants, who he said were in the basement trying to protect children during the confrontation.
But the city's law enforcement community hopes all the defendants will remain behind bars.
Michael G. Lutz, vice president of Lodge 5 of the Philadelphia Fraternal Order of Police, wrote a letter to the board urging that parole be rejected.
In the letter, Lutz evoked the memory of Ramp and also cited the three other officers who were shot and injured.
"May the courage of these officers never become a faded memory of the past, nor may the courage of Police Officer James Ramp be forever sealed in the silence of death," he wrote in the letter, which is on the FOP Web site.
Hesson, the retired officer wounded in the encounter that killed Ramp, said that even so many years later, the events remain unforgettable. "It never leaves your mind," he said.
See more photos from the first MOVE confrontation at http://go.philly.com/move
Contact staff writer Emilie Lounsberry at 215-854-4828 or elounsberry@phillynews.com.
Text of PA Court Decision Available
From International Concerned Family and Friends of Mumia Abu Jamal:
NOTE - We neglected to send out the actual text of the recent decision made by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejecting Mumia's appeal to consider new evidence, discovered after the trial, challenging the testimony of key prosecution witnesses, and thus the validity of the entire trial. As we informed you earlier, the filing was rejected as "untimely". The entire document is available to download at:
http://www.freemumia.com/pdfs/Pennsylvania%20SC%20Feb%2019,%202008.pdf
NOTE - We neglected to send out the actual text of the recent decision made by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejecting Mumia's appeal to consider new evidence, discovered after the trial, challenging the testimony of key prosecution witnesses, and thus the validity of the entire trial. As we informed you earlier, the filing was rejected as "untimely". The entire document is available to download at:
http://www.freemumia.com/pdfs/Pennsylvania%20SC%20Feb%2019,%202008.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)