Come and Join us for a very special event!!!
The Black Cotton Foundation
Date: Saturday, November 7, 2009
Time: 7:00pm - 9:00pm
Location: The Malcolm X & Dr. Betty Shabazz Memorial and Education Center
Street: 3940 Broadway @ 165th Street, Washington Heights
City/Town: New York, NY
We invite you to join us for a very special evening at a very sacred place. The Black Cotton Foundation will be celebrating the 75th Birthday of Dr. Betty Shabazz as they present their 3rd annual Dr. Betty Bahiyah Shabazz Award. This award is given to a person or family who are a positive light in our community despite suffering as tragic loss or overcoming overwhelming obstacles on their own.
This year's recipients are activist Pam Africa of the Move Movement and Chairperson of the Friends of Mumia Coalition and Civil Rights Movement (and) icon Myrlie Evers-Williams, widow of Medgar Evers, author, and former chairperson of the NAACP. There will also be a special award presented to Jasmina Anema, a 6 year old girl who is suffering from a rare form of leukemia; her courage inspired the entire community by thousands of people coming out to bone marrow drives to save her life.
So join us for an evening of singing, dancing, spoken word, stepping, inspiration, laughs, and tears as we celebrate the life of a great woman, Dr. Betty Shabazz. Best of all, it's free!!! :o)
-----------------
Forwarded Message:
CONGRATULATIONS, RECIPIENTS! :-)
From Facebook: Bro. Raheim Singleton
======================
Dr. Betty Bahiyah Shabazz Award Ceremony & 75th Birthday Celebration
Come and Join us for a very special event!!!
The Black Cotton Foundation
Date: Saturday, November 7, 2009
Time: 7:00pm - 9:00pm
Location: The Malcolm X & Dr. Betty Shabazz Memorial and Education Center
Street: 3940 Broadway @ 165th Street, Washington Heights
City/Town: New York, NY
We invite you to join us for a very special evening at a very sacred place. The Black Cotton Foundation will be celebrating the 75th Birthday of Dr. Betty Shabazz as they present their 3rd annual Dr. Betty Bahiyah Shabazz Award. This award is given to a person or family who are a positive light in our community despite suffering as tragic loss or overcoming overwhelming obstacles on their own.
This year's recipients are activist Pam Africa of the Move Movement and Chairperson of the Friends of Mumia Coalition and Civil Rights Movement (and) icon Myrlie Evers-Williams, widow of Medgar Evers, author, and former chairperson of the NAACP. There will also be a special award presented to Jasmina Anema, a 6 year old girl who is suffering from a rare form of leukemia; her courage inspired the entire community by thousands of people coming out to bone marrow drives to save her life.
So join us for an evening of singing, dancing, spoken word, stepping, inspiration, laughs, and tears as we celebrate the life of a great woman, Dr. Betty Shabazz. Best of all, it's free!!! :o)
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Monday, October 26, 2009
11/12-- Come to Washington to Demand Civil Rights for Mumia!
SAVE THURSDAY NOVEMBER 12TH FOR THE DELIVERY OF THE LETTERS, CALLING FOR A CIVIL RIGHTS INVESTIGATION OF MUMIA'S CASE, TO ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER !!!
For more info, go to:
http://www.phillyimc.org/en/november-12-come-washington-demand-civil-rights-mumia
For more info, go to:
http://www.phillyimc.org/en/november-12-come-washington-demand-civil-rights-mumia
Thursday, October 22, 2009
SAVE THURS NOV 12 TO DELIVER LETTERS TO ERIC HOLDER AT JUSTICE DEPARTMENT!
SAVE THURSDAY NOVEMBER 12TH FOR THE DELIVERY OF THE LETTERS, CALLING FOR A CIVIL RIGHTS INVESTIGATION OF MUMIA'S CASE, TO ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER !!!
11 AM PRESS CONFERENCE
1 PM DELIVERY OF LETTERS TO JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
AT THIS CRITICAL MOMENT IN MUMIA'S CASE, A CIVIL RIGHTS INVESTIGATION COULD MEAN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LIFE AND DEATH FOR HIM. IT COULD ALSO OPEN THE DOOR FOR MUMIA'S ULTIMATE RELEASE.
There is right now a very dangerous converging of forces committed to the execution of Mumia. Lynne Abraham, the current District Attorney in Philadelphia, is calling loudly for the Supreme Court to reinstate Mumia's death sentence so that Governor Ed Rendell can do what he has repeatedly promised to do: sign the death warrant. The US Supreme Court is currently reviewing a death penalty case that could have serious implications for Mumia. A ruling on Mumia's case could come anytime.
To cover up the obscenity of their trying to murder an innocent Black man, a great thinker and revolutionary, they now have a Black man, Seth Williams, leading the race for those running to replace DA Abraham. Williams, who is expected to be the next DA of Philadelphia, has stated that he believes Mumia is guilty and should be executed. He is being actively supported by the Fraternal Order of Police.
Finally, on December 9th, the 28th anniversary of the original incident that led to Mumia's incarceration and death sentence, a new film, a hit-piece, called "The Barrel of a Gun" also produced by a Black man, will premiere both in the US and Germany.
PLEASE JOIN US. YOU CAN DO ANY OR ALL OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. Organizations: co-sponsor the November 12th event at the Justice Department, and please, send us whatever financial contributions you can. We are asking for at least $50 from each organization. Checks should be made out to the FMAJC/IFCO and sent to FMAJC, PO Box 16, College Station, New York, NY 10030, or you can make a contribution on www.freemumia.com
2. Organizations and individuals: help us get the word out. Mobilize. Raise and contribute money. Forward this letter to your lists. Fliers will be ready in a few days.
3. Come to the Coalition's next meeting, FRIDAY, OCTOBER 23rd, at 6:30 PM at ST. MARY'S CHURCH, 521 WEST 126TH STREET, BETWEEN AMSTERDAM AND BROADWAY to get fliers, share ideas, and volunteer your work and financial contributions. Organizations are urged to send representatives. Everyone attending will be encouraged to take on work.
Ona Move!
Pam Africa, International Concerned Family and Friends of Mumia Abu-Jamal
Suzanne Ross, Free Mumia Abu-Jamal Coalition
For more information: Call 212-330-8029, 215-476-8812 and check www.freemumia.com
11 AM PRESS CONFERENCE
1 PM DELIVERY OF LETTERS TO JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
AT THIS CRITICAL MOMENT IN MUMIA'S CASE, A CIVIL RIGHTS INVESTIGATION COULD MEAN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LIFE AND DEATH FOR HIM. IT COULD ALSO OPEN THE DOOR FOR MUMIA'S ULTIMATE RELEASE.
There is right now a very dangerous converging of forces committed to the execution of Mumia. Lynne Abraham, the current District Attorney in Philadelphia, is calling loudly for the Supreme Court to reinstate Mumia's death sentence so that Governor Ed Rendell can do what he has repeatedly promised to do: sign the death warrant. The US Supreme Court is currently reviewing a death penalty case that could have serious implications for Mumia. A ruling on Mumia's case could come anytime.
To cover up the obscenity of their trying to murder an innocent Black man, a great thinker and revolutionary, they now have a Black man, Seth Williams, leading the race for those running to replace DA Abraham. Williams, who is expected to be the next DA of Philadelphia, has stated that he believes Mumia is guilty and should be executed. He is being actively supported by the Fraternal Order of Police.
Finally, on December 9th, the 28th anniversary of the original incident that led to Mumia's incarceration and death sentence, a new film, a hit-piece, called "The Barrel of a Gun" also produced by a Black man, will premiere both in the US and Germany.
PLEASE JOIN US. YOU CAN DO ANY OR ALL OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. Organizations: co-sponsor the November 12th event at the Justice Department, and please, send us whatever financial contributions you can. We are asking for at least $50 from each organization. Checks should be made out to the FMAJC/IFCO and sent to FMAJC, PO Box 16, College Station, New York, NY 10030, or you can make a contribution on www.freemumia.com
2. Organizations and individuals: help us get the word out. Mobilize. Raise and contribute money. Forward this letter to your lists. Fliers will be ready in a few days.
3. Come to the Coalition's next meeting, FRIDAY, OCTOBER 23rd, at 6:30 PM at ST. MARY'S CHURCH, 521 WEST 126TH STREET, BETWEEN AMSTERDAM AND BROADWAY to get fliers, share ideas, and volunteer your work and financial contributions. Organizations are urged to send representatives. Everyone attending will be encouraged to take on work.
WORK MEETING:
FRIDAY, OCT 23, 6:30 PM, AT ST. MARY'S CHURCH, 521 WEST 126TH STREET
(LIST OF SPONSORING ORGANIZATIONS AND OTHER DETAILS WILL FOLLOW, AS WILL FLIERS)
Free Mumia and All Political Prisoners! Abolish the Death Penalty! Abolish the Prison Industrial Complex!
Ona Move!
Pam Africa, International Concerned Family and Friends of Mumia Abu-Jamal
Suzanne Ross, Free Mumia Abu-Jamal Coalition
For more information: Call 212-330-8029, 215-476-8812 and check www.freemumia.com
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Second Legal Intelligencer Article on Mumia's death penalty
Please go to http://www.freemumia.com/meeting.html for info on 10/17 EMERGENCY MEETING and make plans to attend!
From: Hans Bennett:
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202434533155&Mumia_AbuJamals_Life_May_Hinge_on_Case_of_NeoNazi_Triple_Murderer
Mumia Abu-Jamal's Life May Hinge on Case of Neo-Nazi Triple Murderer
Shannon P. Duffy
10-14-2009
In a bizarre twist of fate, Mumia Abu-Jamal -- the convicted cop killer whose quarter century on death row in Pennsylvania has made him internationally famous -- may find that his very life hinges on the outcome of a U.S. Supreme Court argument on Tuesday in the case of a neo-Nazi triple murderer who wore a Hitler mustache at trial as he testified proudly about his desire to kill blacks, Jews and gays.
For Abu-Jamal, the stakes couldn't be higher. And the worst-case scenario is that the decision in the Ohio case, Smith v. Spisak, could directly lead to a reinstatement of Abu-Jamal's death sentence.
But the justices may never reach the legal issues that Abu-Jamal shares with Frank Spisak, the neo-Nazi convicted in that case. That could happen if the high court instead focuses entirely on issues relating to whether Spisak's defense lawyer at trial did such a poor job in delivering his closing argument in the death penalty phase that his death sentence cannot stand.
If Spisak secures a victory purely on those grounds, the justices might find it unnecessary to rule on a second issue -- whether the jury instructions were confusing and faulty in Spisak's (and in Abu-Jamal's) case.
Abu-Jamal's case has been in a kind of legal limbo since April. The justices rejected Abu-Jamal's petition for certiorari -- effectively upholding his conviction for the murder of Philadelphia Police Officer Daniel Faulkner -- but took no action on a petition from the Philadelphia district attorney seeking to have his death sentence reinstated.
It soon became clear that the justices were holding the Philadelphia prosecutors' petition in abeyance because they had agreed to hear Spisak's case, which raised a nearly identical issue.
Typically in such cases, the justices decide the first case and then, if necessary, issue summary reversals in the other pending cases that raised the same issue, sending them back to the lower courts to reconsider in light of the high court's most recent pronouncement.
The issue that Abu-Jamal shares with Spisak is that both men won court rulings that overturned their death sentences based on Mills v. Maryland, a 1988 U.S. Supreme Court decision that governs how juries should deliberate during the penalty phase of a capital trial.
In Mills, the justices struck down a Maryland statute that said juries in capital cases must be unanimous on any aggravating or mitigating factor.
The 5-4 decision declared that unanimity was properly required only for "aggravating" factors that support death sentences, but that mitigating factors -- those that weigh against imposing a death sentence -- must be handled more liberally, with each juror free to find on his or her own.
The question now before the courts is whether Mills requires that death sentences in other states be overturned if the juries in those states are misled by faulty instructions or verdict forms to believe that mitigating factors require unanimity.
Perhaps even more important to the justices is a corollary question of federalism: Is it fair for the federal courts to overturn a state court's decision on how to interpretMills by imposing its own interpretation that extends Mills beyond its original scope?
A BIZARRE CLOSING ARGUMENT
But in Tuesday's argument, the justices spent most of their time discussing Spisak's second argument -- that his trial lawyer had delivered such a poor closing argument in the penalty phase that he was effectively denied effective representation.
On that point, the justices were all over the map.
"Have you ever heard or read a defense summation that was more derogatory of the defendant than the summation here?" Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. asked Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray.
Cordray insisted that the trial lawyer had done the best he could with "the bed that was made by his client, who got on the stand for days on end and spewed his racist propaganda, made it clear that he was not only unrepentant but was triumphant."
Alito pressed the point, saying the lawyer told the jury that Spisak demanded no sympathy, and asked: "Isn't that exactly what he has to appeal for in order not to get a death verdict, sympathy based on mental illness, despite the horrific crimes that this person committed?"
Cordray disagreed, saying he considered the lawyer's speech to be part of a "coherent strategy" that was premised on telling the jury: "I can sense that you are not feeling sympathy for my client. Do what makes you a humane people, what makes us proud as a people, and do not give the death penalty to a person who is sick, demented, twisted, as my client has shown himself to be."
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg described the closing argument as "disjointed" and said, "it goes off on tangents that have nothing to do with the sentence. ... I mean, it really is quite a stream of consciousness."
But Ginsburg also asked Spisak's lawyer, Michael Benza of Chagrin Falls, Ohio: "Do you know of any case where ineffective assistance was found on the basis of a closing argument alone?"
Benza conceded he did not, but insisted that was only because Spisak's case was "such an outlier."
"I have been litigating capital cases since 1993. I have never seen a closing argument like this," Benza said.
A group of 20 law professors who teach trial advocacy filed an amicus brief supporting Spisak that urged the justices to declare that his trial lawyer's speech "was deficient to such a level that it constituted ineffective assistance of counsel."
But several justices seemed inclined to approve of the argument as a sound strategy.
As Justice Stephen Breyer described it: "It makes sense logically to say he has the worst defendant he has ever seen. He's murdered lots of people in cold blood. He gets up on the stand and says: ‘I'm going to kill a lot more.' He sounds totally bonkers."
Breyer said he interpreted the trial lawyer's strategy as recognizing that his insanity defense had failed, but nonetheless arguing to the jury, "We don't execute people who are crazy and this guy is crazy."
Justice Antonin Scalia went further, saying, "I thought it was a brilliant closing argument. ... Have you ever conducted a capital case in which the defendant takes the stand with a Hitler mustache and says he's glad for what he's done and he will do it again? ... This was an extraordinary trial, and it seems to me that the technique that counsel used to try to get mercy for this fellow was the best that could have been done."
In telephone interviews Tuesday afternoon, lawyers on both sides of the Abu-Jamal case expressed guarded optimism about the outcome in the Spisak case.
FACTS DIFFERENT ENOUGH?
Attorney Robert Bryan of San Francisco, the lead lawyer for Abu-Jamal, said he believes the Mills issue as it arose in Spisak's case is factually and procedurally different enough that the outcome will not dictate how Abu-Jamal's case should be decided.
But Deputy District Attorney Ronald Eisenberg, who attended the oral arguments, said he anticipates that the justices will reach the Mills issue and will find fault in the way the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals applied it in Spisak's case.
While most of the federal circuits have declined to extend Mills to cases in which there was a risk of juror confusion, Eisenberg said, the 6th Circuit did so in Spisak's case and the 3rd Circuit committed the same error in Abu-Jamal's case.
'PADILLA v. KENTUCKY'
In the first case argued Tuesday, Padilla v. Kentucky, a lawyer told his client, Jose Padilla, a permanent resident alien arrested for drug trafficking, that pleading guilty as part of a plea agreement would not expose him to deportation. That advice was flat wrong.
Padilla sued in 2004, claiming ineffective assistance that deprived him of his constitutional rights. But the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled that incorrect advice on matters that are collateral to the criminal case don't make out a case of ineffective assistance under the Supreme Court's Strickland v. Washington standard.
Most U.S. Supreme Court justices seemed wary of expanding the definition of ineffective assistance to include flawed advice on matters beyond the actual criminal case the lawyer is handling.
"We have to decide whether we are opening a Pandora's box here," said Scalia, who said flawed advice about the effect of a guilty plea on child custody could be another issue defendants would raise.
Breyer also said, "The world is filled with 42 billion circumstances" that could trigger ineffective-assistance claims for other reasons.
Stephen Kinnaird of Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker, arguing for Padilla, said deportation is "so severe and so material" that the court could limit its ruling to advice in that area. "The lawyer has the distinct duty to assess the advantages and disadvantages of the plea."
Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben told the court that a criminal defense lawyer does not have a constitutional duty to advise his client about immigration law, but if he or she does and does so incorrectly, "the lawyer has used his professional skills to undermine a personal decision that belongs to the defendant alone."
The Padilla case is being tracked by immigrant rights advocates who say thousands of immigrants have been put in jeopardy by poor legal representation and advice. "Every day, immigrants are advised to give up their rights and plead guilty to charges that subject them to lifetime exile," said Benita Jain, co-director of the Immigrant Defense Project.
Tony Mauro, the U.S. Supreme Court correspondent for The Legal Intelligencer affiliate The National Law Journal, contributed reporting to this article.
From: Hans Bennett:
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202434533155&Mumia_AbuJamals_Life_May_Hinge_on_Case_of_NeoNazi_Triple_Murderer
Mumia Abu-Jamal's Life May Hinge on Case of Neo-Nazi Triple Murderer
Shannon P. Duffy
10-14-2009
In a bizarre twist of fate, Mumia Abu-Jamal -- the convicted cop killer whose quarter century on death row in Pennsylvania has made him internationally famous -- may find that his very life hinges on the outcome of a U.S. Supreme Court argument on Tuesday in the case of a neo-Nazi triple murderer who wore a Hitler mustache at trial as he testified proudly about his desire to kill blacks, Jews and gays.
For Abu-Jamal, the stakes couldn't be higher. And the worst-case scenario is that the decision in the Ohio case, Smith v. Spisak, could directly lead to a reinstatement of Abu-Jamal's death sentence.
But the justices may never reach the legal issues that Abu-Jamal shares with Frank Spisak, the neo-Nazi convicted in that case. That could happen if the high court instead focuses entirely on issues relating to whether Spisak's defense lawyer at trial did such a poor job in delivering his closing argument in the death penalty phase that his death sentence cannot stand.
If Spisak secures a victory purely on those grounds, the justices might find it unnecessary to rule on a second issue -- whether the jury instructions were confusing and faulty in Spisak's (and in Abu-Jamal's) case.
Abu-Jamal's case has been in a kind of legal limbo since April. The justices rejected Abu-Jamal's petition for certiorari -- effectively upholding his conviction for the murder of Philadelphia Police Officer Daniel Faulkner -- but took no action on a petition from the Philadelphia district attorney seeking to have his death sentence reinstated.
It soon became clear that the justices were holding the Philadelphia prosecutors' petition in abeyance because they had agreed to hear Spisak's case, which raised a nearly identical issue.
Typically in such cases, the justices decide the first case and then, if necessary, issue summary reversals in the other pending cases that raised the same issue, sending them back to the lower courts to reconsider in light of the high court's most recent pronouncement.
The issue that Abu-Jamal shares with Spisak is that both men won court rulings that overturned their death sentences based on Mills v. Maryland, a 1988 U.S. Supreme Court decision that governs how juries should deliberate during the penalty phase of a capital trial.
In Mills, the justices struck down a Maryland statute that said juries in capital cases must be unanimous on any aggravating or mitigating factor.
The 5-4 decision declared that unanimity was properly required only for "aggravating" factors that support death sentences, but that mitigating factors -- those that weigh against imposing a death sentence -- must be handled more liberally, with each juror free to find on his or her own.
The question now before the courts is whether Mills requires that death sentences in other states be overturned if the juries in those states are misled by faulty instructions or verdict forms to believe that mitigating factors require unanimity.
Perhaps even more important to the justices is a corollary question of federalism: Is it fair for the federal courts to overturn a state court's decision on how to interpretMills by imposing its own interpretation that extends Mills beyond its original scope?
A BIZARRE CLOSING ARGUMENT
But in Tuesday's argument, the justices spent most of their time discussing Spisak's second argument -- that his trial lawyer had delivered such a poor closing argument in the penalty phase that he was effectively denied effective representation.
On that point, the justices were all over the map.
"Have you ever heard or read a defense summation that was more derogatory of the defendant than the summation here?" Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. asked Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray.
Cordray insisted that the trial lawyer had done the best he could with "the bed that was made by his client, who got on the stand for days on end and spewed his racist propaganda, made it clear that he was not only unrepentant but was triumphant."
Alito pressed the point, saying the lawyer told the jury that Spisak demanded no sympathy, and asked: "Isn't that exactly what he has to appeal for in order not to get a death verdict, sympathy based on mental illness, despite the horrific crimes that this person committed?"
Cordray disagreed, saying he considered the lawyer's speech to be part of a "coherent strategy" that was premised on telling the jury: "I can sense that you are not feeling sympathy for my client. Do what makes you a humane people, what makes us proud as a people, and do not give the death penalty to a person who is sick, demented, twisted, as my client has shown himself to be."
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg described the closing argument as "disjointed" and said, "it goes off on tangents that have nothing to do with the sentence. ... I mean, it really is quite a stream of consciousness."
But Ginsburg also asked Spisak's lawyer, Michael Benza of Chagrin Falls, Ohio: "Do you know of any case where ineffective assistance was found on the basis of a closing argument alone?"
Benza conceded he did not, but insisted that was only because Spisak's case was "such an outlier."
"I have been litigating capital cases since 1993. I have never seen a closing argument like this," Benza said.
A group of 20 law professors who teach trial advocacy filed an amicus brief supporting Spisak that urged the justices to declare that his trial lawyer's speech "was deficient to such a level that it constituted ineffective assistance of counsel."
But several justices seemed inclined to approve of the argument as a sound strategy.
As Justice Stephen Breyer described it: "It makes sense logically to say he has the worst defendant he has ever seen. He's murdered lots of people in cold blood. He gets up on the stand and says: ‘I'm going to kill a lot more.' He sounds totally bonkers."
Breyer said he interpreted the trial lawyer's strategy as recognizing that his insanity defense had failed, but nonetheless arguing to the jury, "We don't execute people who are crazy and this guy is crazy."
Justice Antonin Scalia went further, saying, "I thought it was a brilliant closing argument. ... Have you ever conducted a capital case in which the defendant takes the stand with a Hitler mustache and says he's glad for what he's done and he will do it again? ... This was an extraordinary trial, and it seems to me that the technique that counsel used to try to get mercy for this fellow was the best that could have been done."
In telephone interviews Tuesday afternoon, lawyers on both sides of the Abu-Jamal case expressed guarded optimism about the outcome in the Spisak case.
FACTS DIFFERENT ENOUGH?
Attorney Robert Bryan of San Francisco, the lead lawyer for Abu-Jamal, said he believes the Mills issue as it arose in Spisak's case is factually and procedurally different enough that the outcome will not dictate how Abu-Jamal's case should be decided.
But Deputy District Attorney Ronald Eisenberg, who attended the oral arguments, said he anticipates that the justices will reach the Mills issue and will find fault in the way the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals applied it in Spisak's case.
While most of the federal circuits have declined to extend Mills to cases in which there was a risk of juror confusion, Eisenberg said, the 6th Circuit did so in Spisak's case and the 3rd Circuit committed the same error in Abu-Jamal's case.
'PADILLA v. KENTUCKY'
In the first case argued Tuesday, Padilla v. Kentucky, a lawyer told his client, Jose Padilla, a permanent resident alien arrested for drug trafficking, that pleading guilty as part of a plea agreement would not expose him to deportation. That advice was flat wrong.
Padilla sued in 2004, claiming ineffective assistance that deprived him of his constitutional rights. But the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled that incorrect advice on matters that are collateral to the criminal case don't make out a case of ineffective assistance under the Supreme Court's Strickland v. Washington standard.
Most U.S. Supreme Court justices seemed wary of expanding the definition of ineffective assistance to include flawed advice on matters beyond the actual criminal case the lawyer is handling.
"We have to decide whether we are opening a Pandora's box here," said Scalia, who said flawed advice about the effect of a guilty plea on child custody could be another issue defendants would raise.
Breyer also said, "The world is filled with 42 billion circumstances" that could trigger ineffective-assistance claims for other reasons.
Stephen Kinnaird of Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker, arguing for Padilla, said deportation is "so severe and so material" that the court could limit its ruling to advice in that area. "The lawyer has the distinct duty to assess the advantages and disadvantages of the plea."
Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben told the court that a criminal defense lawyer does not have a constitutional duty to advise his client about immigration law, but if he or she does and does so incorrectly, "the lawyer has used his professional skills to undermine a personal decision that belongs to the defendant alone."
The Padilla case is being tracked by immigrant rights advocates who say thousands of immigrants have been put in jeopardy by poor legal representation and advice. "Every day, immigrants are advised to give up their rights and plead guilty to charges that subject them to lifetime exile," said Benita Jain, co-director of the Immigrant Defense Project.
Tony Mauro, the U.S. Supreme Court correspondent for The Legal Intelligencer affiliate The National Law Journal, contributed reporting to this article.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Legal Update on Mumia Abu-Jamal from Attorney Robert Bryan
Dear Friends:
October 10 was World Day Against the Death Penalty. I am in The Netherlands at the invitation of Amnesty International. On Friday I gave a lecture at a prestigious law school to a wonderful group of students on behalf of Mumia. Yesterday I spoke at the showing of In Prison My Whole Life, sponsored by Amnesty, concerning my client and the death penalty. Mumia is now a global symbol in the campaign against the death penalty.
I am presenting litigating the issue of the death penalty in the United States Supreme Court. Last year we won a new jury trial in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Philadelphia. The state has gone to to the Supreme Court seeking a reversal of that ruling and the execution of my client. We are presently litigating the matter. Next week the court will hear arguments in an older case from Ohio, Smith v. Spisak, which has a similar issue.
There is a new effort underway to destroy the support for Mumia, who has been on Pennsylvania's death row for nearly three decades. The government's purpose is to kill him. This is the most dangerous time for Mumia since his 1981 arrest. I am fighting for his life. The support of the movement in Germany is crucial to the fight to save and free him.
Der Spiegel magazine published an article on 24 August 2009 which contained misquotes, distortions, false facts, and outright lies. Under influence from the right wing, it was a clear effort to promote the government effort to kill Mumia. The reporter could not even get right the simple fact of where I live in San Francisco, writing stupidly that Pacific Heights is an "alternative area." It states that Mumia was a high school drop out, overlooking the fact that he finished, attended university, and now has two university degrees: a Bachelor of Arts from Goddard College; a Master of Arts from California State University. She falsely stated that Mumia was not working as a journalist at the time of his arrest. Her description of the homicide scene was wrong. In a transparent effort to destroy raising needed funds for the defense, the reporter lied in writing that one million dollars has been raised. In fact the defense has no money - we are broke and thus cannot do things needed for Mumia; the reporter was aware of this. She criticized Mumia because he must wait until a new jury trial to explain in court what happened at the time of the shooting.
This week Reporters Without Borders, headquartered in Paris, published a video interview regarding Mumia's case and the latest case developments. It is in English, French and German, and can be found at: http://www.rsf.org/spip.php?page=article&id_article=34689
Finally, last spring at the Akademie der Künste I announced that we would be issuing an online petition for Mumia. He and I decided to wait until this month for its release. It will be coming soon.
You in Germany have been wonderful in the outpouring of your concern for Mumia. At this crucial time your activism is needed more than ever.
With best wishes,
Robert R. Bryan
Lead counsel for Mumia Abu-Jamal
The Netherlands
October 10 was World Day Against the Death Penalty. I am in The Netherlands at the invitation of Amnesty International. On Friday I gave a lecture at a prestigious law school to a wonderful group of students on behalf of Mumia. Yesterday I spoke at the showing of In Prison My Whole Life, sponsored by Amnesty, concerning my client and the death penalty. Mumia is now a global symbol in the campaign against the death penalty.
I am presenting litigating the issue of the death penalty in the United States Supreme Court. Last year we won a new jury trial in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Philadelphia. The state has gone to to the Supreme Court seeking a reversal of that ruling and the execution of my client. We are presently litigating the matter. Next week the court will hear arguments in an older case from Ohio, Smith v. Spisak, which has a similar issue.
There is a new effort underway to destroy the support for Mumia, who has been on Pennsylvania's death row for nearly three decades. The government's purpose is to kill him. This is the most dangerous time for Mumia since his 1981 arrest. I am fighting for his life. The support of the movement in Germany is crucial to the fight to save and free him.
Der Spiegel magazine published an article on 24 August 2009 which contained misquotes, distortions, false facts, and outright lies. Under influence from the right wing, it was a clear effort to promote the government effort to kill Mumia. The reporter could not even get right the simple fact of where I live in San Francisco, writing stupidly that Pacific Heights is an "alternative area." It states that Mumia was a high school drop out, overlooking the fact that he finished, attended university, and now has two university degrees: a Bachelor of Arts from Goddard College; a Master of Arts from California State University. She falsely stated that Mumia was not working as a journalist at the time of his arrest. Her description of the homicide scene was wrong. In a transparent effort to destroy raising needed funds for the defense, the reporter lied in writing that one million dollars has been raised. In fact the defense has no money - we are broke and thus cannot do things needed for Mumia; the reporter was aware of this. She criticized Mumia because he must wait until a new jury trial to explain in court what happened at the time of the shooting.
This week Reporters Without Borders, headquartered in Paris, published a video interview regarding Mumia's case and the latest case developments. It is in English, French and German, and can be found at: http://www.rsf.org/spip.php?page=article&id_article=34689
Finally, last spring at the Akademie der Künste I announced that we would be issuing an online petition for Mumia. He and I decided to wait until this month for its release. It will be coming soon.
You in Germany have been wonderful in the outpouring of your concern for Mumia. At this crucial time your activism is needed more than ever.
With best wishes,
Robert R. Bryan
Lead counsel for Mumia Abu-Jamal
The Netherlands
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Dangerous news: US Supreme Court Might Reinstate Death penalty for Mumia
We have been saying that there is a strong possibility that the US Supreme Court will reinstate the Death Penalty for Mumia. This while the leading candidate running to replace Lynne Abraham as Attorney General is calling for Mumia's execution and a new hit piece film by Tigre Hill "The Barrel of a Gun" is scheduled to be released around December 9th, the 28th anniversary of Mumia's arrest and the beginning of the subsequent conspiracy to have him executed. Now this article. Please pay close attention and stay tuned for our messages.
Suzanne Ross, for the Free Mumia Abu-Jamal Coalition
This is most alarming news:
Ohio Death Penalty Case Might Determine Abu-Jamal's Fate
Shannon P. Duffy
The Legal Intelligencer
October 12, 2009
Lawyers for convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal will be watching closely on Tuesday when the U.S. Supreme Court takes up an Ohio death penalty case because its outcome may very well decide whether Abu-Jamal's death sentence will be reinstated.
In April, Abu-Jamal lost his final appeal seeking a new trial for the December 1981 murder of Philadelphia Police Officer Daniel Faulkner when the justices refused to take up the issue of whether blacks were unfairly excluded from the jury.
But, at the time, the justices took no action on a companion petition filed by the Philadelphia district attorney's office demanding reinstatement of Abu-Jamal's death sentence despite having discussed it weeks before.
Now it appears certain that the high court has decided to hold the Philadelphia prosecutors' petition in abeyance pending the outcome of Smith v. Spisak -- an Ohio case that raises strikingly similar issues to those in Abu-Jamal's case.
If the prosecutors in that case are successful and win reinstatement of the death sentence imposed on Frank G. Spisak, the justices may then see no need to take up Abu-Jamal's case.
Instead, at that point, it's likely that the justices would simply issue a one-page order in Abu-Jamal's case that would summarily reverse the decision by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and order the appellate court to reconsider whether Abu-Jamal's death sentence should be reinstated.
Why is Abu-Jamal's case so similar to Spisak's? Both were on death row for notorious murders, but both won rulings in federal court that granted them partial new trials limited to the penalty phase.
In both cases, the federal courts' decisions to overturn the death sentences hinged on Mills v. Maryland -- a 1988 U.S. Supreme Court decision that governs how juries should deliberate during the penalty phase of a capital trial.
The Mills ruling struck down a Maryland statute that said juries in capital cases must be unanimous on any aggravating or mitigating factor. Voting 5-4, the justices declared that unanimity was properly required for any aggravating factor, but that mitigating factors -- those that weigh against imposing a death sentence -- must be handled more liberally, with each juror free to find on his or her own.
Since then, Mills has proven to be a powerful tool for defense lawyers aiming to overturn death sentences in numerous other states.
The question now before the courts is whether Mills truly requires that death sentences in other states be overturned if the juries in those states might have been confused by faulty instructions or verdict forms and led to believe that mitigating factors require unanimity.
Perhaps even more important to the justices is a corollary question of federalism: Is it fair for the federal courts to overturn a state court's decision on how to interpret Mills by imposing its own interpretation that extends Mills beyond its original scope?
It's possible that the justices will provide the answers to those questions in Spisak's case that will be immediately applied to Abu-Jamal's case -- with Abu-Jamal and his lawyers forced to simply watch and wait until that happens.
Spisak, 57, was sentenced to death in 1983 for a killing spree at Cleveland State University after a monthlong trial that reportedly included testimony that he was a neo-Nazi and cross-dresser.
According to briefs in the case, Spisak killed Horace T. Rickerson, Timothy Sheehan and Brian Warford and also shot at John Hardaway and Coletta Dartt. Hardaway was shot seven times but survived and identified Spisak as the shooter.
After his arrest, Spisak confessed to all five shootings and declared that his actions were motivated by his hatred of gay people, blacks and Jews.
As Ohio prosecutors argued in their Supreme Court brief, Spisak "proudly testified at length as to his neo-Nazi beliefs and told the jury that those beliefs had motivated the murders."
In 2006, the 6th Circuit overturned Spisak's death sentence based on a Mills violation as well as findings that his lawyers were ineffective and had "demonized" Spisak during the trial.
The Supreme Court overturned the ruling and ordered the 6th Circuit to study the case again in light of two other decisions by the high court.
But the 6th Circuit in 2008 reinstated its prior decisions, finding they were correct.
Now the Supreme Court has taken the Spisak case up a second time to tackle the question of whether the 6th Circuit failed to give proper deference to the Ohio state courts "when it applied Mills v. Maryland to resolve ... questions that were not decided or addressed in Mills."
Abu-Jamal's lead lawyer, Robert R. Bryan of San Francisco, said in April that the issue in Spisak is "very similar" to the issue raised in the prosecutors' petition in Abu-Jamal's case.
"The question we've got," Bryan said at the time, "is whether we'll be left dangling in the wind until Spisak is decided."
In the prosecutor's petition in Abu-Jamal's case, Deputy District Attorney Ronald Eisenberg argued that the 3rd Circuit failed to give the proper deference to the rulings of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court which had addressed the Mills issue in 1995 and -- relying on a 3rd Circuit decision -- concluded that the Pennsylvania jury instructions did not run afoul of Mills.
But by the time Abu-Jamal's case made its way into the federal courts, the 3rd Circuit "had changed its mind," Eisenberg argued, with a series of decisions that said the Pennsylvania courts' analysis of Mills was not only wrong but unreasonable.
Eisenberg urged the justices to see a difference between Mills -- where the Maryland jury was specifically instructed that it had to be unanimous on mitigating factors -- and the situation in states like Pennsylvania, where the issue is much subtler and hinges on speculation by the federal courts that the jury might have been confused.
"The difficulty with the 3rd Circuit's 'risk of confusion' view is that Mills, quite simply, stated no such rule," Eisenberg argues.
Suzanne Ross, for the Free Mumia Abu-Jamal Coalition
This is most alarming news:
Ohio Death Penalty Case Might Determine Abu-Jamal's Fate
Shannon P. Duffy
The Legal Intelligencer
October 12, 2009
Lawyers for convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal will be watching closely on Tuesday when the U.S. Supreme Court takes up an Ohio death penalty case because its outcome may very well decide whether Abu-Jamal's death sentence will be reinstated.
In April, Abu-Jamal lost his final appeal seeking a new trial for the December 1981 murder of Philadelphia Police Officer Daniel Faulkner when the justices refused to take up the issue of whether blacks were unfairly excluded from the jury.
But, at the time, the justices took no action on a companion petition filed by the Philadelphia district attorney's office demanding reinstatement of Abu-Jamal's death sentence despite having discussed it weeks before.
Now it appears certain that the high court has decided to hold the Philadelphia prosecutors' petition in abeyance pending the outcome of Smith v. Spisak -- an Ohio case that raises strikingly similar issues to those in Abu-Jamal's case.
If the prosecutors in that case are successful and win reinstatement of the death sentence imposed on Frank G. Spisak, the justices may then see no need to take up Abu-Jamal's case.
Instead, at that point, it's likely that the justices would simply issue a one-page order in Abu-Jamal's case that would summarily reverse the decision by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and order the appellate court to reconsider whether Abu-Jamal's death sentence should be reinstated.
Why is Abu-Jamal's case so similar to Spisak's? Both were on death row for notorious murders, but both won rulings in federal court that granted them partial new trials limited to the penalty phase.
In both cases, the federal courts' decisions to overturn the death sentences hinged on Mills v. Maryland -- a 1988 U.S. Supreme Court decision that governs how juries should deliberate during the penalty phase of a capital trial.
The Mills ruling struck down a Maryland statute that said juries in capital cases must be unanimous on any aggravating or mitigating factor. Voting 5-4, the justices declared that unanimity was properly required for any aggravating factor, but that mitigating factors -- those that weigh against imposing a death sentence -- must be handled more liberally, with each juror free to find on his or her own.
Since then, Mills has proven to be a powerful tool for defense lawyers aiming to overturn death sentences in numerous other states.
The question now before the courts is whether Mills truly requires that death sentences in other states be overturned if the juries in those states might have been confused by faulty instructions or verdict forms and led to believe that mitigating factors require unanimity.
Perhaps even more important to the justices is a corollary question of federalism: Is it fair for the federal courts to overturn a state court's decision on how to interpret Mills by imposing its own interpretation that extends Mills beyond its original scope?
It's possible that the justices will provide the answers to those questions in Spisak's case that will be immediately applied to Abu-Jamal's case -- with Abu-Jamal and his lawyers forced to simply watch and wait until that happens.
Spisak, 57, was sentenced to death in 1983 for a killing spree at Cleveland State University after a monthlong trial that reportedly included testimony that he was a neo-Nazi and cross-dresser.
According to briefs in the case, Spisak killed Horace T. Rickerson, Timothy Sheehan and Brian Warford and also shot at John Hardaway and Coletta Dartt. Hardaway was shot seven times but survived and identified Spisak as the shooter.
After his arrest, Spisak confessed to all five shootings and declared that his actions were motivated by his hatred of gay people, blacks and Jews.
As Ohio prosecutors argued in their Supreme Court brief, Spisak "proudly testified at length as to his neo-Nazi beliefs and told the jury that those beliefs had motivated the murders."
In 2006, the 6th Circuit overturned Spisak's death sentence based on a Mills violation as well as findings that his lawyers were ineffective and had "demonized" Spisak during the trial.
The Supreme Court overturned the ruling and ordered the 6th Circuit to study the case again in light of two other decisions by the high court.
But the 6th Circuit in 2008 reinstated its prior decisions, finding they were correct.
Now the Supreme Court has taken the Spisak case up a second time to tackle the question of whether the 6th Circuit failed to give proper deference to the Ohio state courts "when it applied Mills v. Maryland to resolve ... questions that were not decided or addressed in Mills."
Abu-Jamal's lead lawyer, Robert R. Bryan of San Francisco, said in April that the issue in Spisak is "very similar" to the issue raised in the prosecutors' petition in Abu-Jamal's case.
"The question we've got," Bryan said at the time, "is whether we'll be left dangling in the wind until Spisak is decided."
In the prosecutor's petition in Abu-Jamal's case, Deputy District Attorney Ronald Eisenberg argued that the 3rd Circuit failed to give the proper deference to the rulings of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court which had addressed the Mills issue in 1995 and -- relying on a 3rd Circuit decision -- concluded that the Pennsylvania jury instructions did not run afoul of Mills.
But by the time Abu-Jamal's case made its way into the federal courts, the 3rd Circuit "had changed its mind," Eisenberg argued, with a series of decisions that said the Pennsylvania courts' analysis of Mills was not only wrong but unreasonable.
Eisenberg urged the justices to see a difference between Mills -- where the Maryland jury was specifically instructed that it had to be unanimous on mitigating factors -- and the situation in states like Pennsylvania, where the issue is much subtler and hinges on speculation by the federal courts that the jury might have been confused.
"The difficulty with the 3rd Circuit's 'risk of confusion' view is that Mills, quite simply, stated no such rule," Eisenberg argues.
Friday, October 09, 2009
10/12 PAM AFRICA on WURD-AM Philadelphia
UPDATE:
WURD-AM Philadelphia has been on fire discussing the very serious situation developing around the increased threats agains Mumia Abu-Jamal. Pam Africa will appear on WURD's Bill Anderson Show this coming Monday and it is definitely not to be missed!!
The Bill Anderson Radio Show
Monday, October 12
8:00-9:00 AM
WURD - www.900amwurd.com
PLEASE TUNE IN AND PASS THE WORD!!
WURD-AM Philadelphia has been on fire discussing the very serious situation developing around the increased threats agains Mumia Abu-Jamal. Pam Africa will appear on WURD's Bill Anderson Show this coming Monday and it is definitely not to be missed!!
The Bill Anderson Radio Show
Monday, October 12
8:00-9:00 AM
WURD - www.900amwurd.com
PLEASE TUNE IN AND PASS THE WORD!!
Thursday, October 08, 2009
URGENT! 10/17 EMERGENCY MTG FOR MUMIA!
INTERNATIONAL CONCERNED FAMILY AND FRIENDS OF MUMIA ABU-JAMAL IS CALLING FOR EVERYBODY TO COME TOGETHER NOW!
**** EMERGENCY MEETING ****
WE NEED YOU TO BE THERE AND ORGANIZE OTHERS TO ATTEND!!
OCTOBER 17, 2009
ABIDING TRUTH MINISTRIES
846 S. 57TH ST. (57TH & CHRISTIAN)
PHILADELPHIA, PA
12:00 - 3:00 PM
OCTOBER 17, 2009
ABIDING TRUTH MINISTRIES
846 S. 57TH ST. (57TH & CHRISTIAN)
PHILADELPHIA, PA
12:00 - 3:00 PM
******************
MUMIA IS UNDER ATTACK!
SUPREME COURT RULING COULD COME DOWN ANY DAY!
SETH WILLIAMS, DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR D.A., HAS PLEDGED TO CALL FOR THE EXECUTION OF MUMIA:
"From my review of the evidence, if there was a new sentencing hearing I would ask for the death penalty."
http://www.philly.com/dailynews/columnists/michael_smerconish/20090827_Michael_Smerconish__A_German_surrender__on_Mumia_.html
"THE BARREL OF A GUN" MUMIA LYNCH MOB FILM SLATED FOR RELEASE IN DECEMBER:
http://www.phillyimc.org/en/fantasies-joe-mcgill-%E2%80%94-response-trailer-barrel-gun
IN 1985 WILSON GOODE AND LEO BROOKS ACTED AS BLACK HIT MEN AGAINST MOVE
IN 2009 SETH WILLIAMS AND TIGRE HILL ARE ACTING AS BLACK HIT MEN AGAINST MUMIA
Y'ALL ALREADY KNOW THEY'VE RUN THIS GAME BEFORE, WE'VE GOT TO PLAN ACTIONS RIGHT NOW TO FIGHT BACK!!
DON'T BE MIA ON OCTOBER 17!!
CONTACT ICFFMAJ AT 215-476-8812
icffmaj@aol.com or info@freemumia.com
www.freemumia.com
http://abu-jamal-news.com/
Sunday, October 04, 2009
The Fantasies of Joe McGill - a response to the trailer for "The Barrel of A Gun"
From Freedom Archives:
by Michael Schiffmann | 10.02.2009
http://www.phillyimc.org/en/fantasies-joe-mcgill-response-trailer-barrel-gunhttp://www.phillyimc.org/en/fantasies-joe-mcgill-response-trailer-barrel-gun
The trailer for the new film about the Mumia Abu-Jamal/Daniel Faulkner case, titled The Barrel of a Gun has just been released. The title refers to a quote from Mao Zedong, that Abu-Jamal made as the 15 year old information officer of the Philadelphia branch of the Black Panther Party in response to the murder of BPP members Fred Hampton and Mark Clark by the Chicago police and the FBI in December 1969: “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”
In this new article, German author Michael Schiffmann confronts the film's pernicious title and explains why the scenario presented by prosecutor Joe McGill is ballistically impossible.
Read the full article at http://abu-jamal-news.com/article?name=German+Book+Reveals+New+Evidence
by Michael Schiffmann | 10.02.2009
http://www.phillyimc.org/en/fantasies-joe-mcgill-response-trailer-barrel-gunhttp://www.phillyimc.org/en/fantasies-joe-mcgill-response-trailer-barrel-gun
The trailer for the new film about the Mumia Abu-Jamal/Daniel Faulkner case, titled The Barrel of a Gun has just been released. The title refers to a quote from Mao Zedong, that Abu-Jamal made as the 15 year old information officer of the Philadelphia branch of the Black Panther Party in response to the murder of BPP members Fred Hampton and Mark Clark by the Chicago police and the FBI in December 1969: “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”
In this new article, German author Michael Schiffmann confronts the film's pernicious title and explains why the scenario presented by prosecutor Joe McGill is ballistically impossible.
Read the full article at http://abu-jamal-news.com/article?name=German+Book+Reveals+New+Evidence
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)