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
Monday, March 10, 2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)