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.

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!!

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

******************

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/

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

National Writers Union/UAW Resolution passed in support of Mumia!

Sisters and Brothers,

We are very happy to announce that the National Writers Union, United Auto Workers Local 1981, has passed a resolution supporting the Civil Rights Investigation of the Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal.  Take note, union organizers, community group activists, and church/mosque/synagogue attendees --- your group, too, can pass such a resolution!

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Whereas award-winning, prolific writer and broadcast journalist Mumia Abu Jamal was accorded honorary membership in the National Writers Union in 1995 and he thereafter worked actively with the Philadelphia Chapter for many years;

Whereas the principle of a fair trial is a constitutional right;

Whereas those who support Mumia believe that he did not receive a fair trial in 1982 based on more than 20 well-documented legal issues;

Whereas extensive evidence of prosecutorial and judicial misconduct in Mumia's trial has surfaced that could have led to Mumia's acquittal (which was the basis on which Attorney General Holder used to overturn the conviction this spring of former Senator Stevens of Alaska);

Whereas Mumia is still on death row in Pennsylvania after 27 years and the Supreme Court this spring turned down a petition to review his request for a new trial;

Whereas the NAACP adopted a resolution at its 2009 convention to press Attorney General Holder to conduct a civil rights investigation of his case;

Hereby be it resolved that the NWU in solidarity with our honorary member Mumia Abu-Jamal endorse the NAACP resolution and sign the petition for a civil rights investigation of Mumia's case.

The Campaign for a Civil Rights Investigation of the Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal

Sponsored by the Brecht Forum and the Free Mumia Abu-Jamal Coalition (NYC)

September 14  --  7:30 pm

The Brecht Forum
451 West Street (between Bank & Bethune)

Minimal contribution requested - Nobody turned away.

Refreshments!


Pam Africa and Free Mumia Coalition (NYC) 
speak about the grassroots campaign.

Speakers: 
Alton Maddox (Attorney at War)
Lynne Stewart (Representative of political prisoners and decades-long civil/human rights attorney)
Daniel Meyers (President, NYC National Lawyers Guild)


Help get the word out!  Download the flyer here.

www.freemumia.com

Pam Africa Speaks at PA NAACP State Conference

(thanks to Hans Bennett for the links!)

On Saturday, August 15, 2009, Pam Africa was invited to speak at the NAACP Pennsylvania state conference, and to address the PA chapters of the NAACP about further actions to support Mumia Abu Jamal, Troy Davis, and other political prisoners.



For more info, check out:

http://www.phillyimc.org/en/pam-africa-speaks-naacp-pa-state-conference-about-mumia-abu-jamal

http://freemumia.com/civilrights.html

Julian Bond Supports the Civil Rights Investigation on "Democracy Now"

TRANSCRIPT OF AMY GOODMAN’S QUESTION TO JULIAN BOND RE MUMIA, AND BOND’S RESPONSE

Democracy Now, July 20, 2009

AMY GOODMAN: Eric Holder, the new Attorney General, also addressed the NAACP. Now, the NAACP has just passed a resolution asking him to investigate the case of another man on death row, Mumia Abu-Jamal. What is your stand on that case? What is the NAACP doing?

JULIAN BOND: Well, we’re going to ask Attorney General Holder to look into this, as anyone who’s followed this case for a number of years know that similar doubts have been raised about him as were raised about Troy Davis. And he’s had trouble bringing these doubts before a tribunal that can say, you know, these things are true or they’re not true. And we think he needs that chance. We think he needs that chance before the state of Pennsylvania decides to snuff his life out.

We oppose the death penalty, and particularly so in these cases where innocence seems likely, seems possible. I mean, just think of the notion of killing someone and then finding out later, boy, we made a terrible mistake, I’m so sorry. I mean, that cannot hold. That cannot be done. So we’re trying to, not only with the Mumia case, but other cases, we expect to talk to General Holder and see if he won’t put the force of the US government behind them.

WRONGS IN CIVIL RIGHTS UNDERLYING ABU-JAMAL’S CONVICTION

By Linn Washington Jr.

During 1981, Philadelphia, Pa police proudly announced making arrests in four separate hi-profile homicides including the murders of two policemen.

However, investigations later revealed that police and prosecutors engaged in serious misconduct in each of those murder cases.

Two of those arrested in 1981 spent twenty-years in prison before newly discovered evidence exposed flawed confessions obtained by police. Another man spent 1,375-days on death row before his release, an ordeal that one judge described as a “Kafkaesque nightmare” due to illegal conduct mainly by police. A jury acquitted the teen arrested for one of the 1981 police killings citing lack of evidence.

Ironically, the one 1981 homicide arrest generating the most attention internationally is the one arrest authorities in Philadelphia declare contains not a single instance of impropriety by either police or prosecutors.

This is the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal – convicted of fatally shooting a Philadelphia policeman in December 1981.

The conviction of death-row journalist Mumia Abu-Jamal is filled with serious violations of fundamental civil rights. Freedom from discrimination is a civil right, yet discriminatory actions by police, prosecutors and judges mare all aspects of the Abu-Jamal case.

The case against Abu-Jamal, cobbled from circumstantial evidence, constitutes a festering sore on America’s justice system. Those demanding Abu-Jamal’s execution cavalierly ignore inconclusive forensics, tainted eyewitness testimony and a specious confession.

Violations comprising the injustice of Abu-Jamal’s conviction include the kinds of structural deficiencies that drive exonerations and official investigations nationwide: police fabricating evidence, multiple instances of prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of defense counsel plus judicial wrongdoing.

One of the most egregious violations is the public pronouncement by the judge presiding at Abu-Jamal’s 1982 trial that he was going to help prosecutors “fry the Nigger.”

That odious admission by Judge Albert Sabo oozing lack of impartiality and racial bigotry clearly violated Abu-Jamal’s constitutionally guaranteed right to a fair trial.

An essential pillar in a constitutionally fair trial, experts agree, is having an “impartial judge” who does not act as “either an assisting prosecutor or a thirteenth juror.”

Assertions by Abu-Jamal’s opponents that his obvious guilt negates any need for following fair trial procedures contradict long established law.

The Pa Supreme Court declared in a 1959 ruling that defendants are entitled “to all the safeguards of a fair trial…even if the evidence of guilt piles as high as Mt. Everest.”

That fair trial right exists irrespective of whether judges or prosecutors are convinced of a defendant’s guilt, the Pa Supreme Court stated in that ruling issued when Abu-Jamal was four-years-old.

That 1959 ruling arose from a Philadelphia murder case where the defendant had pled guilty. Abu-Jamal has consistently proclaimed his innocence in the shooting death of Officer Daniel Faulkner --- before, during and after his trial.

Even some who feel Abu-Jamal could be guilty as charged also believe Abu-Jamal received an unfair trial.

Respected lawyer/journalist Stuart Taylor, in a 1996 article, asserted that Abu-Jamal “received an unfair trial” despite also contending that a “strong probably” existed that Abu-Jamal killed Officer Daniel Faulkner…when Jamal came to the aid of his brother who was being beaten by Faulkner during a traffic stop.

Echoing conclusions of other investigators, Taylor found unfairness in “grossly inadequate defense lawyering, flagrantly biased judging and, in all probability, police fabrication of evidence and intimidation of witnesses.”

Prosecutors contributed to undermining Abu-Jamal’s fair trial rights by withholding evidence of innocence from the defense and the jury during the 1982 trial. This suppression included withholding evidence of a third person at the crime scene other than Abu-Jamal and his brother. Abu-Jamal’s defense centered on the claim that Faulkner’s shooter fled – a contention consistent with eyewitness reports that Faulkner’s shooter fled.

Violations of fair trial procedures by prosecutors are a problem in Pa and nationwide. An October 2007 American Bar Association report chided top prosecutorial officials in Pennsylvania for not complying with “all legal, professional and ethical obligations to disclose to the defense information…and tangible documents…”

Incredibly, state and federal courts including the US Supreme Court have repeatedly dismissed the vile violations in Abu-Jamal’s case when denying his appeals for a new trial.

Dismissals in the Abu-Jamal case contradict those same courts citing chillingly similar violations when voiding over 200 Pa death penalty convictions since 1978.

The federal Third Circuit Court of Appeals, for example, has voided Philadelphia first degree murder convictions upon findings that prosecutors engaged in racially biased jury selection practices.

Yet, in 2008, a 3^rd Circuit panel dismissed Abu-Jamal’s jury bias claim by creating a new standard for proving that claim.

That new proof standard was far stiffer than that Circuit’s existing precedent, exceeding even jury bias proof standards utilized in a US Supreme Court ruling weeks earlier authored by Justice Samuel Alito, a former 3^rd Circuit jurist.

The dissenting judge in that 3^rd Circuit ruling – the first ever dissent in an Abu-Jamal case ruling – upbraided his panel colleagues for seizing Abu-Jamal’s case to change established procedures.

Adherence to precedent is supposedly a fundamental principle of the American legal system. Patterns of failing to follow precedent produces what is dubbed the “Abu-Jamal Exception” – the practice of judges craftily changing precedent to exclude extending Abu-Jamal the legal relief given to other defendants raising the same legal issues.

Documented violations in this closely watched case convince groups as diverse as Amnesty International and the national NAACP that Abu-Jamal is the victim of double standards of justice. The NAACP approved a resolution at its centennial convention in July 2009 calling on the US Department of Justice to investigate civil rights violations in the Abu-Jamal case.

The enormous attention given to the ‘whodunit’ aspects underlying Abu-Jamal’s contentious conviction easily obscures critical context regarding systemic violations by Philadelphia authorities. Failing to factor in this important context elevates the credibility of fallacious claims about Abu-Jamal’s guilt.

One fallacious claim is that police did not frame Abu-Jamal. Evidence from the now proven improprieties in those three other high profile 1981 homicides refutes this claim.

The case of the 1981 arrest producing that wrongful death sentence provides a compelling example of Philadelphia police framing an innocent man.

Philadelphia police had arrested Neil Ferber six months before their December 1981 arrest of Abu-Jamal, charging Ferber with murdering an organized crime figure.

The judge presiding at the trial where Ferber sought compensation for his wrongful incarceration stated in his post-trial opinion that “a variety of Philadelphia police officers” engaged in a litany of illegal conduct “all for the singular purpose of obtaining Ferber’s arrest and subsequent conviction…”

Common sense compels consideration of the conclusion that if Philadelphia police would callously frame a man for a mob murder police could frame a man charged with murdering a fellow police officer.

Persons rejecting evidence of police framing Abu-Jamal ignore a disturbing fact uncovered by investigative reporter Dave Lindorff, author of a book on the Abu-Jamal case. Lindorff documented that seventeen of the 35 police officers involved in the MAJ investigation were later indicted and/or disciplined for misconduct that included manufacturing evidence designed to frame suspects.

Federal investigations and findings by courts have repeatedly documented illegal practices by Philadelphia police and prosecutors.

In 1979, two years before Abu-Jamal’s arrest, the US Justice Department filed an unprecedented civil rights violation lawsuit against 21 top Philadelphia officials – including the city’s then Mayor – charging them with actively backing violent police brutality…abusive misconduct frequently utilizing fabricated evidence to discredit victims and defend their police assailants.

Claims presented at trial about Abu-Jamal’s alleged confession first arose during an investigation into his complaint of suffering police beatings on the day of his arrest – at the crime scene and inside a hospital emergency room.

During that brutality investigation, two officers suddenly remembered hearing Abu-Jamal confess at the hospital. This pair included the officer who brought Abu-Jamal from the crime scene to the hospital who filed a report three hours after Abu-Jamal’s arrest stating Abu-Jamal made “no comments.”

Authorities fired that officer, Gary Wakshul, three years after Abu-Jamal’s arrest. Police officials fired Wakshul for viciously beating a man, including a near fatal assault inside a hospital emergency room.

In 1978, three years before Abu-Jamal’s arrest, the Pa Supreme Court blasted Philadelphia homicide prosecutors for “perpetrating a falsehood and fraud.” This misconduct included having the former head of the DA’s Homicide Unit provide false testimony against a murder defendant. That Supreme Court ruling specifically criticized the “misleading” testimony of ex-Unit head Ed Rendell, who at the time of Abu-Jamal’s trial, served as Philadelphia’s District Attorney.

Courts – state and federal – have overturned many murder convictions obtained during Rendell’s tenure as District Attorney citing instances of misconduct by homicide prosecutors inclusive of withholding evidence of innocence and engaging in racially discriminatory jury selection practices.

The Pa Supreme Court, in a 1999 ruling involving “extensive and flagrant prosecutorial misconduct” released two reputed Philadelphia mob members convicted of a high-profile murder, ruling this pair was denied a fair trial. That unfair trial took place two years after Abu-Jamal’s trial during Rendell’s DA tenure.

The Pa Supreme released those two mob members directly from prison, one year after its 1998 Abu-Jamal case ruling where that Court rejected voluminous claims of prosecutorial misconduct during Abu-Jamal’s trial and his appeal proceedings.

Incidentally, five of the seven Court justices participating in that 1998 ruling against Abu-Jamal received substantial electoral financing and other support from Philadelphia’s police union – the leading proponent of Abu-Jamal’s execution.

A February 2000 Amnesty International report on Abu-Jamal’s case expressed concern about the “political support” Pa justices receive from police organizations noting the prospect of “severe political backlash” against any justice challenging Abu-Jamal’s conviction.

Pa judicial ethics require judges to remove themselves from cases they handled while serving as government lawyers. Yet, a former Philadelphia DA-turned-Pa Supreme Court Justice – who’s received extensive police union backing – has repeatedly refused to remove himself from Abu-Jamal appeals.

Equal protection of laws is an essential aspect of civil rights. The Blacks Law Dictionary – cited as authority by judges – defines equal protection of the law in part as: “no person shall be denied the same protection of laws which is enjoyed by other persons in like circumstances…”

Pa Supreme Court rulings in 1988 and 1989 provide glaring evidence of equal protection violations.

In March 1988, the Pa Supreme Court issued a ruling granting a new trial to a Pa State Trooper charged with fatally shooting a woman inside a judge’s office. That Trooper shot the woman he accused of burglarizing his home during a court proceeding involving that burglary.

The Court ruled the Trooper did not receive a fair trial because the presiding judge made a single statement questioning the professional credentials of a defense witness. The Court deemed that single statement as offering an improper ‘opinion.’

However, one year later, the same Court found no fair trial fault in numerous opinion laden statements by Judge Sabo during Abu-Jamal’s trial – including Sabo assailing the professional competency of Abu-Jamal’s attorney in front of the jury.

Equal protection violations comprise a consistent thread in the trial and appellate court rejections of Abu-Jamal’s legal claims.

These violations include the U.S. Supreme Court in the early 1990s twice refusing to consider Abu-Jamal’s claim that prosecutors violated his First Amendment association rights with inflammatory references to his teenaged membership in the Black Panther Party.

Although Abu-Jamal had voluntarily left the BPP 12-years before his 1982 trial, prosecutors speciously argued his former BPP membership spurred his killing a cop.

The U.S. Supreme Court, months after rejecting Abu-Jamal’s first appeal, granted a new hearing to a murderer who challenged prosecutorial reference to his current membership in a violent white racist prison gang. Following the favorable ruling for the racist, Abu-Jamal unsuccessfully sought Supreme Court reconsideration of his association right claim citing that Court’s ruling in the white racist’s case.

Months after spurning Abu-Jamal a second time, the Supreme Court granted a new hearing to a white murderer challenging prosecutorial reference of his membership in a devil worshipping cult. When giving relief to the devil worshipper, the Supreme Court cited the precedence of its ruling in the racist’s case.

Equal protection of laws seemingly should have provided an ex-Black Panther with the same protection of laws as a white racist and white devil worshipper given the similarities of their appeal circumstances.

The failures of federal and state courts to correct the gross violations in Abu-Jamal’s case, compounding the illegal conduct of police and prosecutors, cries out for an investigation by the U.S. Justice Department requested by organizations and individuals concerned about America’s bedrock principal of equal justice under law.

It is true that courts enjoy wide discretion in interpreting law as those courts deemed appropriate.

However, the fact that state and federal courts have rejected every evidentiary issue and all but one procedural error issue presented in the Abu-Jamal case raises real questions about courts acting in accordance with the principle of equal-justice-under-law.

To accept the assertion that the Abu-Jamal case is one of open-&-shut guilt free of any error requires embracing scenarios that defy logic, law and the proven official misconduct in those other 1981 Philadelphia homicide arrests.

--Linn Washington Jr. is a Yale Law Journalism Fellowship graduate and Philadelphia Tribune columnist who has investigated the Abu-Jamal case since December 9, 1981 – the day of Abu-Jamal’s arrest.

GET ON THE BUS FOR MUMIA! This Saturday!

People, get on board the next step of our relentless Campaign for a Civil Rights Investigation of the Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal!

This Saturday, August 15th, Pam Africa, leader of the worldwide movement to Free Mumia, is addressing the NAACP Pennsylvania State meeting. This is very significant as that state has been led by Jerry Mondesire, an individual who has historically been very hostile to Mumia and to Pam Africa and MOVE. With the recent support the national NAACP has given the call for a Civil Rights Investigation of Mumia's case, through both a resolution and a very strong statement by Chairman Julian Bond, even Mondesire is responding.

Saturday's meeting is being held at 9 AM at the Radisson Hotel in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. The Free Mumia Abu-Jamal Coalition will be supporting Pam Africa with our educational flyers and gorgeous signs, reaching out to the State membership and pressuring the leadership to carry out the mandate of the Resolution just passed by the National NAACP Convention.

Be there and help consolidate this new trajectory of Mumia's case! We leave midtown New York at 6:30am (yes, that early) and we'll be back by 6:30pm. Round-trip transportation to the front door of the Radisson is only $20. Book fast by calling 212-330-8029. Refreshments will be provided. Bring lunch, if you wish..

Free Mumia and all Political Prisoners!

NAACP calling for U.S. action on Mumia case

Written by Larry Miller, Philadelphia Tribune, July 13, 2009

The case of Mumia Abu Jamal surfaced again when earlier this month NAACP Chairman Julian Bond said the 100-year-old civil rights organization was asking Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate the case.

On a segment of Democracy Now, aired on July 20, Bond, speaking with moderator Amy Goodman and citing the case of Troy Davis, stated Holder should look into the case because over the years serious doubts have been raised over whether Abu Jamal received a fair trial.

"We're going to ask Attorney General Holder to look into this," Bond said during the broadcast. "As anyone who's followed this case for a number of years knows that similar doubts have been raised about him as were raised about Troy Davis. And he's had trouble bringing these doubts before a tribunal that can say, you know, these things are true or they're not true. And we think he needs that chance. We think he needs that chance before the state of Pennsylvania decides to snuff his life out."

Bond said the NAACP opposes the death penalty, and particularly so in cases where innocence seems possible.

"I mean, just think of the notion of killing someone and then finding out later, boy, we made a terrible mistake, I'm so sorry," Bond said. "I mean, that cannot hold. That cannot be done. So we're trying to, not only with the Mumia case, but other cases, we expect to talk to General Holder and see if he won't put the force of the U.S. government behind them."

But concern for Mumia doesn't stop there. The day before Bond's statement, former Rep. Cynthia McKinney sent a letter to Holder also requesting that the Justice Department conduct a civil rights investigation of the case.

"I am writing to ask for your personal and immediate intervention to put an end to a grave injustice. Anyone who has read the reports, as I have, including briefs and opinions of the courts, knows that Mumia Abu Jamal was tried and convicted amid sensationalism and hysteria that, at its core, constituted a racial frenzy," McKinney wrote. "Indicting words from the judge, himself, point to racism and prejudice even inside the courtroom. The `Batson Issue' should be of real concern to everyone interested in justice. Sadly, Mumia was convicted amid the very racial cowardice of which you, yourself, have spoken."

McKinney said the "imperative for a civil rights investigation is clear in Abu Jamal's case."

Pam Africa, a long-time supporter of Abu Jamal and coordinator of the International Concerned Family and Friends of Mumia Abu Jamal, said her colleagues have been trying since 2004 to get the Justice Department to look into the case.

"We were told that if we could show evidence of a consistent and on-going conspiracy to keep Mumia from getting a new trial, then they could look into it," she said. "Having Julian Bond push for this, getting Professor Charles Ogletree's involvement is just what's needed in getting the NAACP's resolution on this case. It's not just about Mumia; this covers Troy Davis, Marshall Eddie Conway and Reggie Clemons. Now is the time to keep the pressure up because Mumia doesn't have a chance without the people's pressure. There was no fair trial. There's going to be a massive movement on this because Mumia is innocent."

December 2008 marked the 27th anniversary of the death of police Officer Daniel Faulkner, allegedly by Abu Jamal, a fiery journalist-turned cab driver.

Since that tragic December night in 1981, the case has been mired in controversy, with accusations of racial discrimination during the trial process being raised almost from the beginning.

Since Abu Jamal's conviction, his defense attorneys have filed numerous appeals and his supporters have staged endless protests calling for his release from prison.

They say there is no doubt in their minds that Abu Jamal is innocent. They also contend that he didn't squeeze the trigger that ended Faulkner's life and that he didn't get a fair trial.

Maureen Faulkner, widow of the slain officer, has stated numerous times that she has no doubt in her mind that Abu Jamal murdered her husband.

"The bottom line is that there were eyewitnesses that saw what happened that night, and the evidence, the ballistics show that Mumia Abu Jamal murdered my husband," said Faulkner on an edition of WHYY's Radio Times. "He confessed in the emergency room, and several people heard him confess, saying `I shot the MF-er and I hope he dies' ... Priscilla Durham, she testified in the court in 1982 that she heard him, the security guard. This man confessed to murdering my husband."

This year of 2009 could well mark the beginning of the next round of protests.

District Attorney Lynne Abraham is calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to reinstate Abu Jamal's death sentence and both the DA's office and Abu Jamal's vocal supporters are awaiting a decision.

In March 2008, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit upheld the 1982 murder conviction. The court also upheld a 2001 ruling that tossed out the death penalty because the jury was improperly instructed and agreed with a lower court ruling that Abu Jamal would have to receive a new penalty hearing before he could be executed.

If the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office decides not to grant a death penalty hearing, Abu Jamal would automatically be sentenced to life in prison, an apparent victory, but not as far as Abu Jamal's supporters are concerned.

"Life in prison is not a victory for Mumia, not as far as we're concerned," Africa said.

On Nov. 18, 2008, the District Attorney's Office filed papers asking the Supreme Court to review the lower court's decision.

Hilary Shelton, director, NAACP Washington Bureau and senior vice president for Advocacy and Policy, said there is enough controversy and conflicting evidence in the case to warrant a new trial for Abu Jamal.

"The formal position of the NAACP on this case is that Abu Jamal deserves a new trial," Shelton said. "There's enough contradictory evidence and conflicting statements to call for this. We're also calling for his removal from death row. There's no reason to keep him under that lock up."

Shelton said in the past, the civil rights organization has been asking the United States Attorney General and the Justice Department to review the case.

During past NAACP national conventions and board meetings, resolutions were passed regarding this issue. Shelton said it was the hope of the NAACP that Holder would move forward with their request.

"We spoke with him about Abu Jamal soon after his confirmation and he was familiar with the case," Shelton said. "Our president Benjamin Jealous has also expressed his concerns and mentioned it during our last convention, along with the racial disparity of the death penalty. We do recognize the discrimination regarding this. Abu Jamal deserves a new trial and we fully support this along with the Justice Department's efforts in this matter."

Radio Blast for the MOVE 9

ONA MOVE, Everybody! Thanks to the support of radio host nationally and internationally, we have arranged numerous radio programs for The MOVE 9 to call into around August 8th. Some programs internationally (Spain, New Zealand, etc) they are not able to call into but the host will broadcast info about The MOVE 9 anyway.

Below is a list of programs that The MOVE 9 will be calling into. I have included the web sites for these programs that you can access them over the internet if you are not in the area. We also hope that you will flood local radio programs with calls about The MOVE 9 and flood local newspapers with letters to the editor as well. Thanks for all of your support.

Ramona

• Thursday, 7/30 8:00pm (est)/ WBAI 99.5FM www.wbai.org / Sally O'Brien-New York, NY.
• Sunday, 8/2, 1:00pm (est)/ Uhuru radio www.uhururadio.com / Chimurenga- Phila., PA.
• Monday, 8/3 8:05am (est)/ WURD 900AM www.900wurd.com/ Bill Anderson- Phila., PA.
• Monday, 8/3 5:00pm (est)/ WHPK 88.5FM www.whpk.org / Zarakyah Ahmadiel- Chicago, IL.
• Tuesday, 8/4 6:00pm (est)/ www.blogtalkradio.com/4justicenow /Mary Ellen Digiacomo
• Tuesday, 8/4 11:00pm (est)/ KPFK 90.7FM www.kpfa.org/ Dedon Carr-Los Angeles, CA.
• Wednesday, 8/5 12:00pm (est)/ CFRU 93.3FM www.cfru.ca/ Matt Soltys- Guelph, ON. Canada
• Wednesday, 8/5 1:00pm (est)/ WURD 900AM www.900amwurd.com / Reggie Bryant-Phila., PA.
• Thursday, 8/6 11:00am (est)/ WPFW 89.3FM www.wpfw.org / Rhyme Katkhouda-Washington, DC.
• Friday, 8/7 11:00pm (est)/ Wandas Picks wandaspicks.asmnetwork.org /Wanda Sabir
• Friday, 8/7 (est)/ KFAI 90.3 (Mnpls.) 106.7FM (St. Paul) www.kfai.org / Lydia Howell-Minneapolis, MN.
• Friday, 8/7 6:00pm (est)/ WRFG www.wrfg.com /Njere Alghanee-Atlanta, GA.
• Friday, 8/7 8:00pm (est)/ WLTH 1370AM www.wlth1370am.com / Ron Muhammad-Gary, IN.
• Saturday, 8/8 11:30am (est)/ KCBLR www.kcblr.org / Shiriki Unganisha-Kansas City, MO.
• Saturday, 8/8 2:00pm (est)/ WURD 900AM www.900amwurd.com / Norm Bond
• Monday, 8/10 9:30pm (est) KBOO 90.7FM www.kboo.com / Ruth Kovacs-Portland, OR.

There will also be radio programs in:
Barcelona Spain (www.radiobronka.info/escuchar) 6am (est) Sat. 8/8
Hamilton New Zealand (www.communityradio.co.nz) 9pm (est) Sun. 8/9

TRANSCRIPT OF AMY GOODMAN'S QUESTION TO JULIAN BOND RE MUMIA, AND BOND'S RESPONSE

Democracy Now
July 20, 2009

AMY GOODMAN: Eric Holder, the new Attorney General, also addressed the NAACP. Now, the NAACP has just passed a resolution asking him to investigate the case of another man on death row, Mumia Abu-Jamal. What is your stand on that case? What is the NAACP doing?

JULIAN BOND: Well, we're going to ask Attorney General Holder to look into this, as anyone who's followed this case for a number of years know that similar doubts have been raised about him as were raised about Troy Davis. And he's had trouble bringing these doubts before a tribunal that can say, you know, these things are true or they're not true. And we think he needs that chance. We think he needs that chance before the state of Pennsylvania decides to snuff his life out.

We oppose the death penalty, and particularly so in these cases where innocence seems likely, seems possible. I mean, just think of the notion of killing someone and then finding out later, boy, we made a terrible mistake, I'm so sorry. I mean, that cannot hold. That cannot be done. So we're trying to, not only with the Mumia case, but other cases, we expect to talk to General Holder and see if he won't put the force of the US government behind them.

DONATE in this CRITICAL TIME for MUMIA!

At this Critical Moment, where all immediate legal routes are pending, the movement for Mumia's freedom enters a campaign for a civil rights investigation into Mumia's case. This campaign is crucial in raising awareness of Mumia's case and in battling for Mumia's ultimate liberation.

We are currently urgently attempting to cover expenses for this campaign, which includes funds for buses, production of materials, merchandise, flyers, website design and development, just to name a few.

To make an online donation to contribute to fund this urgent and very important campaign, please visit our website: www.freemumia.com. Here you will find "Donate Now" options which will easily direct you to make a donation.

THANK YOU!

FREE MUMIA AND ALL POLITICAL PRISONERS

WHAT YOU CAN DO to join the campaign to ensure Mumia his civil rights!

THE CAMPAIGN FOR A CIVIL RIGHTS INVESTIGATION OF THE CASE OF MUMIA ABU-JAMAL

Now that the US Supreme Court has ruled that Mumia will not be granted a new trial or even a hearing on issues related to guilt or innocence, we have decided to launch a campaign to demand that Attorney General Eric Holder and the Justice Department conduct a civil rights investigation. Specifically, we are asking Holder and the Justice Department to assess the suppression of evidence that could have led to Mumia's acquittal, as well as the other egregious examples of prosecutorial and judicial misconduct in the 27- year court process.

The four currently planned components of this campaign are:

1. A letter writing campaign to Eric Holder.
   
   
2. A focus on getting the NAACP to actively support this campaign in line with its unfulfilled promise in its 2004 resolution when it "reiterated its support of the international movement for a new and fair trial for Mumia Abu-Jamal." WE WILL BE AT THE HILTON HOTEL IN NYC ON MONDAY, JULY 13 WHEN ERIC HOLDER WILL BE ADDRESSING THE CONVENTION.
   
   
3. A day of lobbying of congressional representatives to support a civil rights investigation (letters are being sent and calls are being made to them to request appointments) on WEDNESDAY, JULY 22.
   
   
4. A press conference is being scheduled for mid-September in Washington, DC. Details will be announced.
   
   

Things you can do to help this campaign:

1. Sign the letter to attorney general Eric Holder online or download and mail to the FMAJC address as listed on the letter.
   
   
2. Contact local NAACP chapters, and ask them to join us at the NAACP NATIONAL CONVENTION IN NYC ON MONDAY, JULY 13TH, to call on the organization to actively support this campaign
   
   
3. Get your local congressional representative to endorse the campaign, to write his/her own letter or just sign onto the letter we are circulating. Let us know about the congressional representatives you are contacting by e-mailing us at freemumia@freemumia.com or calling us at (212) 330-8029. JOIN US IN LOBBYING DAY ON WEDNESDAY, JUNE 22ND. We are providing a free bus from NYC, leaving at 5 am and returning by 10 pm. (If you need housing for the night before, let us know by calling or e-mailing to above contacts)

FOR MORE INFO CONTACT: (212)- 330-8029 OR GO TO www.freemumia.com

Congressional Reps Rangel and McKinney call for Investigation for Mumia!

from Hans Bennett:

Former US Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, and current U.S. Congressman Charles Rangel, who is chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means, have both released their open letters to US Attorney General Holder, calling for a federal civil rights investigation into the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal.

Actions are being organized throughout the summer to support the campaign for a federal civil rights investigation, including at the upcoming NAACP convention in New York City, July 11-16. Organizers are focusing particularly on July 13, the day that Attorney General Holder will address the convention. Supporters will then be in Washington, D.C., on July 22 to lobby their elected officials and, in mid-September, they’ll return to Washington, D.C., for a major press conference.For more information on how you can support the campaign for a federal civil rights investigation and to sign the online letter and petition to Attorney General Holder, visit: http://freemumia.com/civilrights.html

For more information on the campaign for the civil rights investigation, please read this week's SF Bay View Newspaper article:

http://www.sfbayview.com/2009/citing-withheld-evidence-supporters-of-mumia-abu-jamal-call-for-civil-rights-investigation/

Read the open letters from

Charles Rangel: http://freemumia.com/rangel.gif

Cynthia McKinney: http://www.phillyimc.org/en/cynthia-mckinneys-open-letter-attorney-general-holder-re-mumia-abu-jamal

Legal Update

Date: June 6, 2009
From: Robert R. Bryan, lead counsel
Subject: Mumia Abu-Jamal, death row, Pennsylvania

Introduction In recent months there have been significant legal developments concerning my client, Mumia Abu-Jamal, who has been on Pennsylvania's death row for nearly three decades. We are presently litigating on his behalf in both the United States Supreme Court and the trial court, the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia.

Mumia's life on the line in this monumental struggle. He is in the greatest danger since his arrest in 1981.

Like so many on death row, Mumia has been a victim of poverty, racial bigotry, fraud, inadequate legal representation, and an unfair trial. The trial judge was a racist who referred to my client as a "nigger" whom he was going to help the prosecution "fry." Prior case lawyers failed to investigate and present pivotal issues both at trial and in the post-conviction process, thereby limiting what could be considered by the Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals. Below is a brief summary of case developments.


U.S. Supreme Court, Washington There have been two separate cases pending in the Supreme Court concerning Mumia. One involves strictly the death penalty, while the other concerns the prosecution's use of racism in jury selection.

Abu-Jamal v. Beard, U.S. Sup. Ct. No. 08-8483 This case related to the Philadelphia District Attorney's use of racism in selecting the jury that decided both the question of guilt and whether my client should die. The prosecutor used 66.67% of his available strikes to exclude African Americans from sitting on the jury. A judge in the lower federal court determined there was clear evidence that the prosecutor's strikes of black people was race-based and thus unconstitutional. The dissenting justice in a 2-1 decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, found overwhelming evidence of racism by the prosecutor. (Abu-Jamal v. Horn, 520 F.3d 272 (3rd Cir. 2008).) He explained that the "core guarantee of equal protection, ensuring citizens that their State will not discriminate on account of race, would be meaningless were we to approve the exclusion of jurors on the basis of . . . race. . . . I respectfully dissent."

On April 6, 2009, the Supreme Court declined to hear our case. This came as a profound disappointment and shock, even though the court rejects 98-99% of cases presented for review. Mumia's case was exceptional, especially in view of the powerful dissenting decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals. Our strong constitutional position was bolstered by briefing from the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund, which I had invited into the case to address the racism issue. Tragically the court turned its back on it own case law which held that racism in jury selection offends the U.S. Constitution and mandates a new trial. Our extensive briefing had laid out the overwhelming evidence establishing the prosecutor's race-based behavior and the racially-charged atmosphere of the trial. On May 1, I submitted a Petition for Rehearing which has been rejected.

Beard v. Abu-Jamal, Sup. Ct. No. 08-652 We are still litigating in the Supreme Court inm an entirely separate case in which the prosecution is seeking to overturn the victory achieved last year in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In that ruling the court ordered a new jury trial on the question of the death penalty. Both sides have gone back and forth in briefing in the Supreme Court. Due to developments in another case with a similar issue, it may be several months before Mumia's case is decided. If we win, then there will be a new jury trial. In the event of an adverse decision, the prosecution would push for a quick execution.

Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia, Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, Nos. 1357-1359 On April 20, 2009, we filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus Relief in the trial court, the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas. At issue is the fact that Mumia was convicted on the basis of unreliable and incomplete expert ballistics testimony presented by the prosecution during the 1982 trial. We have also moved for discovery of all related evidence possessed by the prosecution.

Other Developments in Europe and the United States In this country t he support and activism of the National Lawyers Guild has been crucial on our work on behalf of Mumia. The cry for justice in the case of Mumia continues to be particularly strong in Europe. As an example, on May 17, 2009 a feature article datelined Paris appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle. The piece is reprinted at the the end of this Legal Update and available online with photographs at: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/16/MN4517CARS.DTL. It describes the activism of committed French human-rights activists on behalf of Mumia which has drawn considerable attention in the U.S.

United States Many people have heard about the support for Mumia by the National Lawyers Guild, headquartered in New York with chapters across the country, but know little of the details. Since its founding in 1937 the NLG has provided legal support to a wide range of legal and social movements, starting with drafting New Deal legislation and aiding in the formation of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) and the United Auto Workers (UAW). It has actively supported labor rights and played a central role in defending individuals targeted by the House Un-American Activities Committee. NLG lawyers, legal workers and law students participated in the Civil Rights movement and opened "people's law offices" in the South. In the 1990s and into the new millennium the organization's scope widened to include protecting individual rights against the increasing dominance of corporations, legal defense at mass demonstrations, and training lawyers about developments in the law such as newly developing anti-terrorism legislation. The NLG aggressively opposes the death penalty, and many of its attorneys specialize in capital defense work. That included the legal effort to save Julius and Ethel Rosenberg who were executed June 19,1953 in New York. Each year the NLG features a "Student Day Against the Death Penalty," and actively assists 100 student chapters in hosting public education events to raise awareness of the multitude of problems with the death penalty and to work toward its abolition. Law professor members and students have hosted hundreds of events featuring leading capital defense attorneys and former death-row inmates, and the NLG provides an organizing kit to students to help facilitate events against capital punishment.

Mumia's case has been a national priority of the NLG for over two decades. For many years he has served on the Board of Directors as Jailhouse Lawyer Vice President. At the annual conventions numerous resolutions have been passed seeking a new and fair trial and over the years the NLG has co-sponsored events around the country related to his case. Three years ago I invited the Guild to file an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief on his behalf. Thereafter a brief was submitted on the issue of the death penalty and other issues by Heidi Boghosian, NLG Executive Director, a member professor from George Washington University, Washington, D.C. and others in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Further, Ms Boghosian, an outstanding lawyer, has been active is assisting me in the representation of Mumia for many years, and has joined me in a number of client meetings. Mumia has enormous respect and trust for her and the NLG.

Germany In Berlin on March 27, the prestigious Akademie der Künst (Academy of Arts), located two doors from the U.S. Embassy at the Brandenburg Gate, hosted an outstanding panel discussion on Mumia as a journalist, author, and political prisoner. It originated from the efforts of the writer Sabine Kebir, PEN, and Nicole Bryan. The audience filled the auditorium. Participating in the human-rights event, was: Madame Danielle Mitterrand, former First Lady of France; Klaus Staeck, President of the Akademie; Johano Strasser, President of PEN Germany; Günter Wallraff, a well known author; Gerhart Rudolf Baum, former Minister of the Interior, the Bundestag (parliament), and United Nations representative; and me. A video of the entire event is available on the Internet, at: http://www.adk.de/de/aktuell/forum_dokumentationen/forum_27.Akadgespr.html. The commitment of supporters in Germany is a model of activism, especially those in Berlin, Hamburg and Bremen.

France The movement for Mumia in France is excellent. It is led by the Collectif "Ensemble Sauvons Mumia Abu-Jamal" (Together We Will Save Mumia Abu-Jamal), composed of approximately 80 organizations. In Prison My Whole Life, the outstanding film on Mumia, is being shown in theaters throughout the country and continues to draw acclaim at film festivals. In Paris on March 15, it was awarded the Grand Prix and the Planete Prix at the Film Festival of Human Rights (Le Festival International du Film des Droits de l'Homme). In my two speeches at the awards ceremony, I accepted the prizes not only on behalf of Mumia, but also "for all the men, women and children who are on death rows around the world." The movie was also featured at the Amnesty International, a past winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, is a sponsor of the film. Claude Guillaumaud-Pujol, author of Mumia Abu-Jamal: The Voice of the Voiceless, and I spoke after each presentation. The movie was also featured in the Lyon International Film Festival last October. Mumia is grateful to Jacky Hortaut and the many supporters in France who do so much in the cause of justice.

Netherlands On April 3 and and 4, In Prison My Whole Life was shown at Amnesty International's Movies That Matter film festival in The Hague and Amsterdam. Nicole and I participated in both events. There was a panel discussion following each showing in which Arlette Stuip, who attended Goddard College with Mumia, Ms. Guillaumaud-Pujol, and I discussed the case and answered questions.

Donations for Mumia's Legal Defense in the U.S. Our legal effort is the front line of the battle for Mumia's freedom and life. His legal defense needs help. The costs are substantial for our litigation in the U.S. Supreme Court and at the state level. To help, please make your checks payable to the National Lawyers Guild Foundation (indicate "Mumia" on the bottom left). All donations are tax deductible under the Internal Revenue Code Code, section 501(c)(3), and should be mailed to:

Committee To Save Mumia Abu-Jamal
P.O. Box 2012
New York, NY 10159-2012

Conclusion It is outrageous and a violation of human rights that Mumia remains in prison and on death row. His life hangs in the balance. My career has been marked by successfully representing people facing death in murder cases. I will not rest until we win Mumia's case. Justice requires no less.

With best wishes,

Robert R. Bryan
Lead counsel for Mumia Abu-Jamal

Law Offices of Robert R. Bryan
2088 Union Street, Suite 4
San Francisco, CA 94123-4117
RobertRBryan@aol.com

WRITE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, ERIC HOLDER, DEMANDING JUSTICE FOR MUMIA!

PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION FOR MUMIA DEMANDING A CIVIL RIGHTS INVESTIGATION OF THE OUTRAGEOUS 27 YEAR 'LEGAL' PROCESS HE HAS HAD TO ENDURE!

Write to Attorney General Eric Holder demanding that he immediately initiate a civil rights investigation addressing a 27-year history of prosecutorial and judicial violations of Mumia Abu-Jamal's constitutional and international rights. If the Justice Department can guarantee justice for Senator Ted Stevens, it should do the same for noted journalist and multiple-award recipient, and international honoree Mumia Abu-Jamal. Demand that your elected officials endorse this campaign!

Initiated by the Free Mumia Abu-Jamal Coalition (NYC)

SIGN THE ONLINE PETITION AT
http://www.iacenter.org/mumiapetition

On April 6, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Mumia's appeal for a new trial based on evidence of racist jury selection on the part of the prosecutor during the original 1982 trial in Philadelphia. This appeal was based on the 1986 U.S. Supreme Court "Batson decision", a legal decision that says that prospective jurors cannot be selected based on their race.

This issue was considered the strongest basis for overturning Mumia's conviction, though certainly not the only one. According to Amnesty International's detailed review of the case, Mumia was denied at his trial in 1982 the right to a fair judge and unbiased jury, the right to represent himself and the right to adequate resources to prepare his defense. In addition, the prosecution withheld critical evidence from the defense, judge and jury; suborned the perjury of its chief witness; and intimidated at least one other witness to perjure herself. Since the AI report, more evidence has emerged of an ongoing conspiracy by the prosecution and members of the judiciary to keep out of the legal record evidence that points to Mumia's innocence. At the very least, this evidence indicates serious misconduct on the part of the prosecution and judiciary. It was precisely this kind of misconduct that led to the overturning, just two weeks ago, of the conviction of Senator Ted Stevens.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals' rejection of Mumia's appeal on the basis of the "Batson decision" shocked many legal observers, as the court set new and higher standards of appeal in complete violation of its own precedents. One of the members of the three-judge panel that arrived at this decision wrote a scathing 41-page dissent pointing to how Mumia was not granted the same rights that previous appellants were given by this very same court.

Please take a few minutes to read, sign and circulate widely the important letter below to Attorney General Eric Holder. Send copies to other officials demanding that they, too, demand a civil rights investigation. Only a powerful, international campaign can win long-overduefreedom for this outspoken, award-winning journalist and stop a 27-year-old conspiracy to silence him with legal lynching or life in prison without parole. Both options are outrageous violations of Mumia's human and constitutional rights, and we will not allow them to stand. Mumia needs our movement and our movement needs Mumia.

SIGN THE ONLINE PETITION AT
http://www.iacenter.org/mumiapetition

If you wish to send this via regular mail, feel free to use the following:

US Department of Justice
Washington, DC

April 2009

To Eric Holder, US Attorney General:

We write to you with a sense of grave concern and outrage about the US Supreme Court's denial of a hearing to Mumia Abu-Jamal on the issue of racial bias in jury selection, that is, the "Batson issue". Inasmuch as there is no other court to which Abu-Jamal can appeal for justice, we turn to you for remedy of a 27- year history of gross violations of US constitutional law and international standards of justice as documented by Amnesty International and many other legal groups around the world.

We call on you and the Justice Department to immediately commence a civil rights investigation to examine the many examples of egregious and racist prosecutorial and judicial misconduct dating back to the original trial in 1982 and continuing through to the current inaction of the US Supreme Court. The statute of limitations should not be a factor in this case as there is very strong evidence of an ongoing conspiracy to deny Abu-Jamal his constitutional rights.

We are aware of the many differences that exist between the case of former Senator Ted Stevens and Mumia Abu-Jamal. Still, we note with great interest the actions you have taken with regard to Senator Stevens' conviction to assure that he not be denied his constitutional rights. You were specifically outraged by the fact that the prosecution withheld information critical to the defense's argument for acquittal, a violation clearly committed by the prosecution in Abu-Jamal's case. Mumia Abu-Jamal, though not a US senator of great wealth and power, is a Black man revered around the world for his courage, clarity, and commitment and deserves no less than Senator Stevens.

Cordially,

(Your signature will be appended here based on the contact information you enter in the online form)

SIGN THE ONLINE PETITION AT
http://www.iacenter.org/mumiapetition.org/

International Campaign for Justice for Mumia Abu-Jamal

Sponsored by:

Free Mumia Abu-Jamal Coalition (NYC)
P.O. Box 16, College Station
New York, N.Y. 10030
(212) 330-8029
www.freemumia.com

International Concerned Family and Friends of MumiaAbu-Jamal
Philadelphia, PA
www.freemumia.com
(215) 476-8812

Millions for Mumia
www.millions4mumia.org

International Action Center
www.iacenter.org
c/o Solidarity Center
55 West 17th St 5C
New York, NY 10011

For further information call: (212) 633-6646

Support the Free Mumia Coalition

Fundraising is a political task, & so this is an intensely political appeal. We are literally non-profit because we have no "stuff" to sell. All we "sell" is our commitment to free Mumia Abu-Jamal and all political prisoners. But we need money to fulfill the goals we've set to free Mumia.

First, we've been relying on other organizations to lend us their sound systems for rallies & marches, and sometimes we just can't make it happen. Not every activist who has an important story to tell is a street orator, so we are too often stuck in New York or Philly with dynamic speakers but no sound system to make them heard. Convinced that everything is possible, a trio of our most dedicated organizers went forth & actually purchased a portable sound system so we can demonstrate for Mumia anywhere we can travel. This has cost us $350, and it came out of a hard-working activist's rent money. We need your donation right now to put the rent money back in his pocket. Ten donations at only $35 will keep the wolf from the door.

Our big campaign to demand that the Justice Department grant Mumia a civil rights investigation is gathering tremendous momentum, with some really high-profile names, such as Ruby Dee, Cornel West, and Charles Rangel signing on, as well as thousands of folks from the U.S. and abroad. To go forward with lobbying in D.C., we are working to raise $2,000 to charter a bus.

We also want to be sure that folks who take a day off from work and family responsibilities to travel 9 hours and lobby will feel empowered to do it. We'd really like to offer free bus fare and meals to Mumia's lobbyists, who will be educating and raising the consciousness of our elected officials. We're asking for seed money to make sure that no one who is willing to go is excluded. Please give generously to make a real change in our nation and to help free Mumia Abu-Jamal!

You may donate online at www.freemumia.com or using the link below:

or send checks and money orders (payable to Free Mumia Coalition, NYC/IFCO) to us at our fiscal sponsor, IFCO [Interreligious Foundation for Community Organization]:
IFCO
402 West 145th Street
New York, NY 10031

Call 212-926-5757 with any fiscal questions or 212-330-8029 (Mumia Hotline) with any other questions.

The Mumia Exception

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/05/05/18592858.php
http://www.phillyimc.org/en/mumia-exception

(Embedded video, interview at Philadelphia City Hall on May 1, 2008, featured at Abu-Jamal-News.com)

"The Mumia Exception"
by J. Patrick O'Connor
CrimeMagazine.com

Since his conviction in 1982 for the murder of Philadelphia Police Officer Daniel Faulkner, Mumia Abu-Jamal, through his numerous books, essays and radio commentaries, has become the face of the anti-death penalty movement in the United States and an international cause célèbre. Paris, for example, made him an honorary citizen in 2003, bestowing the honor for the first time since Pablo Picasso received it in 1971. The "Free Mumia" slogan is seen and heard around the world. Over the last 27 years he has become the most visible of the invisible 3,600 Death Row inmates in the United States.

The case of Mumia Abu-Jamal cries out for justice not because he is famous but because he is innocent. Kenneth Freeman, the street-vendor partner of Abu-Jamal's younger brother, Billy Cook, killed Officer Faulkner moments after Faulkner shot Abu-Jamal in the chest as he approached the scene where Faulkner had pulled over the car Cook was driving. When Faulkner began beating Cook with an 18-inch long flashlight, Abu-Jamal ran from his nearby taxi to come to his brother's aid. After Abu-Jamal was shot and collapsed to the street, Freeman emerged from Cook's car, wrestled Faulkner to the sidewalk and then shot him to death. Freeman fled the scene on foot. Numerous witnesses told police they saw one or more black men fleeing right after the officer was shot. A driver's license application found in Faulkner's shirt pocket led the police directly to Freeman's home within hours of the shooting.

But the police did not want Freeman for this killing, releasing him without him even having to call his attorney. The police, led by the corrupt Inspector Alfonzo Giordano who took charge of the crime scene within minutes of the shooting, wanted to pin Faulkner's death on the blacked-out, police-bashing radio reporter at the scene. Freeman they would deal with later, meting out their own brand of street justice in the dead of night.

Five days after Faulkner's death, the Center City newsstand where Freeman and Billy Cook operated a vending stand burned to the ground at about 3 a.m. Freeman told a Philadelphia Inquirer reporter hours after the arson that "there was no question in my mind that the police are behind this." The Inquirer also quoted a Center City police officer who was on patrol in the area that morning as saying, "It's entirely possible" that "certain sick members" of his department were responsible. "All I know is when I got to the station to start my shift at 7:30 this morning, the station house was filled with Cheshire grins." Although the "unsolved" arson bankrupted Freeman and Cook, a worse fate awaited Freeman.

On the night in 1985 when the police infamously firebombed the MOVE home and burned down 60 other row houses in the process, incinerating 11 MOVE members including five children, Freeman's dead body would be found nude and gagged in an empty lot, his hands handcuffed behind his back. There would be no police investigation into this obvious murder: the coroner listed his cause of death as a heart attack. Freeman was 31.

Abu-Jamal had been well known to local police since he joined the Philly chapter of the Black Panther Party at age 15. The next year he was named "lieutenant of information," an appointment the Inquirer ran on its front page, picturing the young radical at Panther headquarters. Even though the chapter would soon dissolve, both the police and the FBI continued to monitor Abu-Jamal when he left Philadelphia to attend Goddard College in Vermont and on his return to Philadelphia to take up his radio career. As his career took wing, landing him a high-profile job at Philadelphia's public radio station, that scrutiny intensified due to his overtly sympathetic coverage of the radical counter-culture group MOVE. Throughout the 1970s and well into the 1980s, police confrontations with MOVE were brutal displays of civic discord and police abuse that culminated in the 1985 firebombing.

Abu-Jamal's case has been politically charged from the beginning. By the time he was arrested for the murder of Officer Faulkner, he was a marked man to the police for his Black Panther Party association and his favorable reporting of MOVE. Inspector Giordano, who detested both Abu-Jamal and MOVE, would set the framing of Abu-Jamal in motion by falsely claiming that Abu-Jamal had told him in the paddy wagon that he had killed Faulkner. (Giordano would not be called by the prosecution to reiterate his fabrication at Abu-Jamal's trial. Instead, on the first business day following Abu-Jamal's sentencing, Giordano would be "relieved" of his duties by the police department on what would prove to be well-founded "suspicions of corruption." An FBI probe of rank corruption within the Philadelphia Police Department - the largest ever conducted by the U.S. Justice Department of a police force - would lead to Giordano's conviction four years later. The FBI investigation would ensnare numerous other high-ranking Philadelphia police officials and officers, many of them involved in Abu-Jamal's arrest and trial. Deputy Police Commissioner James Martin, who was in charge of all major investigations, including Faulkner's death, was the ringleader of a vast extortion enterprise operating in City Center.)
The trial of Abu-Jamal was a monumental miscarriage of justice from beginning to end, representing an extreme case of prosecutorial abuse and judicial bias. A pamphlet published by Amnesty International in 2000 stated it had "determined that numerous aspects of Mumia Abu-Jamal's case clearly failed to meet minimum standards safeguarding the fairness of legal proceedings."

The trial judge, Common Pleas Court Judge Albert F. Sabo, presided at more trials that resulted in the defendants receiving the death penalty than any judge in the nation. Of the 31 so sentenced, five won reversals on appeal, an indication of extreme judicial bias. The Inquirer called him "a defendant's worst nightmare," a prominent defense attorney referred to him as "a prosecutor in robes." A former court stenographer said in an affidavit in 2001 that during Abu-Jamal's trial she overheard Sabo tell someone at the courthouse, "Yeah, and I am going to help them fry the nigger."

During the third day of jury selection, Sabo stripped Abu-Jamal of his right to represent himself and interview potential jurors despite the fact that the Inquirer reported Abu-Jamal was "intent and business like" in his questioning. On the second day of the trial, Sabo removed Abu-Jamal from the courtroom for insisting that MOVE founder John Africa replace his court appointed backup counsel, Anthony Jackson. In turn, Sabo appointed Jackson to represent Abu-Jamal. This would put to rout the possibility of a fair trial.

Abu-Jamal's first major appeal issue developed during jury selection when the prosecutor, Assistant D.A. Joseph McGill, used 10 or 11 of the 15 peremptory challenges he exercised to keep otherwise qualified blacks from sitting on this death-penalty-vetted jury. In a city with more than a 40 percent black population at the time, Abu-Jamal's jury ended up with only two blacks. In 1986 - four years after Abu-Jamal's trial - the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Batson v. Kentucky that it was unconstitutional for a prosecutor to exclude potential jurors on the basis of race. The ruling was retroactive.

The second major constitutional claim that would arise occurred at the end of the guilt phase of the trial when the prosecutor referenced the appeal process in his summation to the jury. He told the jury that if they found Abu-Jamal guilty of murder in the first degree that "there would be appeal after appeal and perhaps there could be a reversal of the case, or whatever, so that may not be final."

Although Officer Faulkner had been killed by Kenneth Freeman, the prosecution mounted its evidentiary case against Abu-Jamal on the perjured testimony of a prostitute informant and a cab driver with a suspended license for two DUIs who was on probation for throwing a Molotov cocktail into a school yard during a school day. Both of these witnesses had been handpicked by Giordano at the crime scene.

"The Mumia Exception"

As Amnesty International established in its 2000 pamphlet entitled "The Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal: A Life in the Balance," his tortuous appeal process has been fraught with "judicial machinations." Claims that won the day in other cases were repeatedly denied him.
In 1989, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court turned down his first appeal even though one of his claims was almost identical to one that had persuaded the same court to grant Lawrence Baker a new trial in 1986. In that case, Commonwealth v. Baker, the court overturned Baker's death sentence for first-degree murder on the grounds that the prosecutor improperly referenced the lengthy appeal process afforded those sentenced to death. That prosecutor - Joseph McGill - was the same prosecutor who used similar - almost verbatim - language in his summation during both the guilt and sentencing phases of Mumia's trial. The judge who failed to strike the language in the Baker case was the same judge who presided at Mumia's trial, Common Pleas Court Judge Albert F. Sabo.

The State Supreme Court ruled in Baker that the use of such language "minimize[ed] the jury's sense of responsibility for a verdict of death." When Abu-Jamal's appeal included the very same issue, the court reversed its own precedent in the matter, denying the claim in a shocking unanimous decision.

A year later, in Commonwealth v. Beasley, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reinstated the death sentence of Leslie Beasley, but exerted its supervisory power to adopt a "per se rule precluding all remarks about the appellate process in all future trials." This rule not only reinstated the Baker precedent but it ordered all prosecutors in the state to refrain once and for all from referencing the appellate process in summations to the jury. The court could have made this new rule retroactive to Mumia's case, but did not.

As Amnesty International declared in its pamphlet about the case, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's judicial scheming leave "the disturbing impression that the court invented a new standard of procedure to apply to one case only: that of Mumia Abu-Jamal," Temple University journalism professor Linn Washington aptly dubs this and subsequent court decisions denying Mumia a new trial "the Mumia exception."

Abu-Jamal's Post-Conviction Relief Act hearing in 1995 was doomed from the beginning when Judge Sabo - the original trial judge - would not recuse himself from the case and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would not remove him for bias.

Abu-Jamal's federal habeas corpus appeal - decided by Federal District Judge William Yohn in 2001 - should have resulted in at least an evidentiary hearing on Abu-Jamal's Batson claim that the prosecutor unconstitutionally purged blacks from the jury by using peremptory strikes to exclude 10 or 11 otherwise qualified black jurors from being empanelled. Abu-Jamal's attorneys had included a study conducted by Professor David Baldus that documented the systematic use of peremptory challenges to exclude blacks by Prosecutor McGill in the six death-penalty cases he prosecuted in Common Pleas Court in Philadelphia. Abu-Jamal's trial was one of the six trials studied by Baldus. Judge Yohn barred the study on the erroneous grounds that the study was not from a relevant time period when, in fact, it was completely relevant. Judge Yohn's error was egregious and could have been easily avoided if he had held one evidentiary hearing on that defense claim. But during the two years that Judge Yohn considered Abu-Jamal's habeas appeal, he held no hearings.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit should have corrected that district court mistake by remanding Abu-Jamal's case back to Judge Yohn to hold the evidentiary hearing on the Batson claim, but in another example of the "Mumia exception," the court instead continued the long and tortured denial of Mumia's right to a fair trial. In a 2 to 1 decision released on March 27, 2008 that reeked of politics and racism, the court ruled that Abu-Jamal had failed to meet his burden in providing a prima facie case. He failed, the majority wrote, because his attorneys were unable to establish the racial composition of the entire jury pool.

In the decision written by Chief Judge Anthony Scirica, the court stated that "Abu-Jamal had the opportunity to develop this evidence at the PCRA evidentiary hearing, but failed to do so. There may be instances where a prima facie case can be made without evidence of the strike rate and exclusion rate. But, in this case [i.e., "the Mumia exception" is in play], we cannot find the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's ruling [denying the Batson claim] unreasonable based on this incomplete record."

In a nutshell, the majority denied Mumia's Batson claim on a technicality of its own invention, not on its merits. It also broke with the sacrosanct stare decisis doctrine - the principle that the precedent decisions are to be followed by the courts - by ignoring its own previous opposite ruling in the Holloway v. Horn case of 2004 and the Brinson v. Vaughn case of 2005. It is a general maxim that when a point has been settled by decision, it forms a precedent which is not afterwards to be departed from. In a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in 1989 in a case entitled United States v. Washington, the decision stated that an appeal court's panel is "bound by decisions of prior panels unless an en banc decision, Supreme Court decision, or subsequent legislation undermines those decisions." None of those variables were in play when the Third Circuit Court majority ruled against Mumia's Batson claim.

Judge Thomas Ambro's dissent was sharp: "I do not agree with them [the majority] that Mumia Abu-Jamal fails to meet the low bar for making a prima facie case under Batson. In holding otherwise, they raise the standard necessary to make out a prima facie case beyond what Batson calls for."

In other words, the majority, in this case alone, has upped the ante required for making a Batson claim beyond what the U.S. Supreme Court stipulated. When ruling in Batson in 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court did not require that the racial composition of the entire jury pool be known before a Batson claim may be raised. The high court ruled that a defendant must show only "an inference" of prosecutorial discrimination in purging potential jurors. Prosecutor McGill's using 10 or 11 of the 15 peremptory strikes he deployed is just such an inference - and an extremely strong one. McGill's strike rate of over 66 percent against potential black jurors is in itself prima facie evidence of race discrimination. Prima facie is a Latin term meaning "at first view," meaning the evidence being presented is presumed to be true unless disproved.

In commenting on Holloway v. Horn, a Batson-type case with striking similarities to Abu-Jamal's claim, Judge Ambro - the lone Democrat-appointed judge on the three judge panel - demonstrated just how disingenuous the panel's ruling against Abu-Jamal's Batson claim was. "In Holloway, Judge Ambro wrote in his 41-page dissent, "we emphasized that 'requiring the presentation of [a record detailing the race of the venire] simply to move past the first state - the prima facie stage - in the Batson analysis places an undue burden upon the defendant.' There we found the strike rate - 11 of 12 peremptory strikes against black persons - satisfied the prima facie burden." In Holloway, the Third Circuit ruled that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision denying Holloway's Batson claim was "contrary to" and an "unreasonable application" of the Batson standard.

In fact, in rendering both its Holloway and Brinson decision, the Third Circuit specifically rejected the requirement that a petitioner develop a complete record of the jury pool. In making its ruling in Abu-Jamal's appeal, it reversed itself to make the pretext of an incomplete jury record his fatal misstep. Basing its ruling against Abu-Jamal's Batson claim on this invented pretext demonstrated how desperate the majority was to block Abu-Jamal's Batson claim. What the majority was implying was that Abu-Jamal's jury pool may well have consisted of 60 or 70 percent black people and that therefore the prosecutor's using 66 percent of his strikes to oust potential black jurors was statistically normal and did not create a prima facie case of discrimination. This hypothesis is, of course, absurd on its face. Blacks have been underrepresented on Philadelphia juries for years - and remain so today. What was likely was that the jury pool at Abu-Jamal's trial was at least 70 percent white.

The Third Circuit - if it had followed its own precedent - would have found the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's ruling denying Abu-Jamal's Batson claim "contrary to" and an "unreasonable application" of the Batson standard and remanded the case back to Federal District Court Judge Yohn to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the prosecutor's reasons for excluding the 10 potential black jurors he struck. If that hearing satisfied Judge Yohn that all of the prosecutor's reasons for striking potential black jurors were race neutral, the Batson claim would fail. If, conversely, that hearing revealed racial discrimination on the part of the prosecutor during jury selection - even if only concerning one potential juror - Judge Yohn would have been compelled to order a new trial for Abu-Jamal.

Abu-Jamal's final opportunity for judicial relief was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in November of 2008 in the form of a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari. On February 4, the high court docketed and accepted that filing. According to Abu-Jamal's lead attorney, Robert Bryan of San Francisco, "The central issue in this case is racism in jury selection. The prosecution systematically removed people from sitting on the trial jury purely because of the color of their skin, that is, being black."

For at least two compelling reasons, it appeared that the U.S. Supreme Court would grant Abu-Jamal's petition. In its last term, the high court expanded its 1986 Batson ruling in its Synder v. Maryland decision to warrant a new trial if a minority defendant could show the inference of racial bias in the prosecutor's peremptory exclusion of one juror. Under Batson, the defense needed to show an inference - i.e., a pattern - of racial bias in the overall jury selection process. Ironically, the Supreme Court's 7-2 decision strengthening and expanding Batson's reach was written by Justice Samuel Alito, most recently of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

The second reason was that the Third Circuit's ruling denying Abu-Jamal's Batson claim undermined both the Batson and Synder decisions by placing new restrictions on a defendant's ability to file a Batson claim. The Third Circuit ruling against Abu-Jamal had the effect of creating new law by tampering with a long-established Supreme Court precedent.

As a result, there seemed to be something more than a remote possibility that the Supreme Court would agree to grant Abu-Jamal's writ.

A Writ of Certiorari is a decision by the Supreme Court to hear an appeal from a lower court. Supreme Court justices rarely give a reason why they accept or deny Cert. Although all nine justices are involved in considering Cert Petitions, it takes only four justices to grant a Writ of Certiorari, even if five justices are against it. This is known as "the rule of four."

Despite needing only four votes to have his Batson claim argued, the Supreme Court on April 6, 2009 tersely denied Abu-Jamal's request for a writ. The so-called "liberal block" of Justices Stevens, Ginsberg, Souter, and Breyer disintegrated, yielding to the awesome political power of the "Mumia exception."

Abu-Jamal - who turned 55 on April 24, 2009 - will, barring the most unlikely intervention by a future governor of Pennsylvania, spend the rest of his life in prison for a crime he did not commit.

J. Patrick O'Connor is the editor of Crime Magazine (http://www.crimemagazine.com) and the author of The Framing of Mumia Abu-Jamal, published by Lawrence Hill Books in 2008.