Listen to the full Pacifica program
View the PDF file of the transcribed interview, with numerous graphics at: http://againstthecrimeofsilence.de/News/Mumia-July-2007.pdf
Interview with Margaret Prescod for Her KPFK Program "Sojourner Truth"
July 2007
Margaret Prescod: On behalf of Pacifica Radio Network, Mumia Abu-Jamal, thank you so much for joining us.
Mumia Abu-Jamal: Thank you for the invitation, Margaret.
MP: Mumia, people argue over how you should be defined: as a taxi driver, as an investigative journalist, Black Panther, black militant, jailhouse lawyer – how do you see yourself?
MAJ: Well, in a way, all of those things and more. I mean, when people argue, sometimes people argue for simplicity, when life is rarely that simple. Life is complex. All of those things, many other things, an herbalist, a jailhouse lawyer, a writer, a poet – not a great one, but I try –, a father, a grandˇfather, a husband; you know, all of those things are correct.
MP: Can you say how you manage to get the information and the focus to do the weekly commentaries that are played on more than 100 radio stations around the country?
MAJ: I read, quite a bit, good, interesting books on political subjects, sometimes history books, I try to read several newspapers, and also try to keep my eye on what's happening here, around me, so you know sometimes a local story is better than, say, a commentary on the war [laughs]. So you don't loose your journalist's eye. This is just, I guess, another beat, so to speak.
MP: How do you structure your day? About how many hours a day you have outside, and how do you use that time?
MAJ: Death row is what is actually in many states comparable to what's called solitary confinement. By that I mean you're in a cell by yourself, solitary. And with the exception of two hours a day, when you're in a cage; some people call it yard, but I think the proper reference is, cage, you're either alone or with one other person.
So, for 22 hours a day, that's a lot of time to think, to read, to write, and so, while it may astound a lot of people, I actually have probably more time [laughs] than the average reporter or the average commentator working on a radio station or for a general publication.
MP: So in terms of strucˇturing the 22 hours you're spending reading, writˇing, and thinking etc. and then the two hours you have some time for some exercise, perhaps…
MAJ: Yes, yeah. Well, exercise in a cage really means, sometimes jogging around, doing pushups and what have you. For me, I've become an aficionado of handball. That's like tennis without rackets. [Both laugh] And it's very vigorous, it's a good workout, and usually three days a week, I'm able to get a good game, and I got a very, very good set-up game early this morning.
MP: How has prison life changed in the last quarter of a century?
MAJ: In ways that were not conceivable certainly over 30 years ago. It was unthinkable then that several decades later, we would be looking at, let's say, roughly three million people, you know, that there are more people in the prison system in the state where you're at, in California, right now than in the whole country of France. It's crazy, I mean, it's un – you couldn't even conceive of those kinds of numbers.
So in the last quarter of a century, what we're really looking at is what many people have come to call the prison-industrial complex. There is a great deal of money, there's a great deal of business, there's a great deal of social power to be gained by the prison industry, in this sense, that many of the people who people the prisons, who populate the prisons, come from the urban core, the cities, and they're transported to the rural districts, where population has traditionally been very sparse.
But what a lot of people don't know is that everybody in prison is counted as part not just of the census, but of political districts, and if you want to talk about a cause of revolution being taxation without representation, or at least counting without representation – we're counted in congressional districts, but obviously, you know, our voices, our concerns, our livelihood – none of our interests are counted when it comes to those people whose numbers help get them elected, so to speak.
MP: When you are inside, Mumia, and your major supporters are outside, there's a real problem. How do you give direction to their support work?
MAJ: Usually in personal ways, and that is writing letters to people and just calling people up and talk to them, and usually also through supporters, who are able to communicate at a deeper, more intense level with younger supporters. We work people to people, you know, person to person, that's the only real effective way I think to really arm someone to do this very arduous task of being an anti-prison activist.
MP: What about how you see your case in influencing that of other prisoners?
MAJ: That's difficult to assess because it's difficult to communicate farther than people on your block. It's difficult also for people outside of prison to understand how truly isolated people are in some prison systems because of the differences in terms of construction with new prisons as opposed to old prisons.
In the old prisons, people were able to communicate and move around far better and easier than they are now. The new prisons have been built and constructed with an eye towards isolating people. So there might be a guy on the next block, but you may not see that person for six months, a year, I mean it's really quite that isolated, so it's difficult to communicate beyond what you can see on your own part of your own block.
MP: What are the older prisoners like in contrast to the younger prisoners? I mean, is there a difference that you have noted between those who have been inside for a long time, and the newer prisoners coming in? How do the younger prisoners compare with what you are like, for example?
MAJ: Well, when I came in, I was considerably older than many of the young people who are coming in now. I was 27, 28 years old, which sounds like a kid to me now, but when you consider that many of the guys coming in now are in their late teens or 20, 21, this means that there's a profound difference between then and now.
Many of the older guys tend to be – ah, I have to say many, not all – but many tend to be more settled, more sober, and I think more patient, more conscious – that I think is a safe assessment. Many of the younger guys, especially in more recent years, it isn't just that they're younger, but that they come from a situation that is far more dire, far more provocative than those of the ones who came maybe 20 years from now.
By that I mean, the situation in many communities, especially, let us say in Philadelphia, is far more dangerous, far more economically unstable, far more socially disastrous frankly, than it has been 20 years ago. You can see that when you meet young people who really, I think, are in a constant state of rage, in a constant state of an inability, an unwillingness to listen to older people.
MP: Now, turning to your situatˇion… I'd like you to tell us a little bit about this push for a new trial. Your legal team and your supporˇters are pressing for a new trial. Why a new trial, and why now?
MAJ: Why now? Well, of course, it didn't begin now. We've been fightˇing for that for many years, in many places across the state, and many courtrooms. We've only been in the federal courts for the last, almost the last decade, but certainly since 2001, since the ruling came down. We're now, of course, in the Court of Appeals.
We're fighting for a new trial, and I am reminded when I think of our new trial of what a former attorney who was on the case used to say: We're fighting for, not just a new trial, but a true trial, because in front of the former judge, Albert F. Sabo, who was a life member of the Fraternal Order of Police, who was referred to by many people who've practiced in front of him as a "prosecutor in black robes," it cannot be said that that was a true, reasonable, fair, just trial by any standard.
MP: If you are granted a new trial, can we expect to hear anything new?
MAJ: I think we will hear a great deal that is new. I said, many years ago, that the jury didn't hear a great many things, and heard things that were, frankly, quite unfair, untrue, and not representative. I said that in 1982 to the jury. I think if we have a new trial, we can prove that.
MP: And if you're denied your right to a new trial?
MAJ: I am not a negative person. I don't think in negative terms. That's simply not my nature; I can honestly say that I'm not a person who is pollyannaish – but I think that we have made a good, strong case! And I think the results will be good.
MP: How do you keep yourself together, Mumia? I mean, it's been 25 years, you've been through all of this miscarriage of justice, the overwhelming racism in the first trial – and now here you are on the battle front again, struggling for a new trial. How do you keep yourself together?
MAJ: I guess I can best be described as a busy person. It's not a new thing, but it's a true thing; I've always been the kind of person who feels like there is not enough hours in the day, 24 hours certainly isn't not enough. I always have projects unfinished, requests that cannot be met, letters that have not been [laughs] written frankly that I thought were written, art that I want to draft or draw or paint, pieces that I want to write – so, there are many hours in the day, and I try to use them well, but I've always been busy, and I think that's helpful.
Also, I've been surrounded by extraordinary people. I've met extraordinary people. From my first day, many years ago, down in Philadelphia, in the county, all across the state. Extraordinary men, on death row. And I have also met people from many walks of life, who are remarkable, men and women, writers, activists, you name it. So that has been helpful – that has been very helpful.
MP: Are you hopeful?
MAJ: I'm always hopeful, believe that. [Both laugh.] You know, people can't escape their essential nature. Well I said I'm not pollyannaish, but I've always been hopeful, and that's just how I look at the world.
MP: Certainly that comes across. Anything else you would like to say to those who are listening around the country and online indeed around the world?
MAJ: I just wish people would understand that I am very, very appreciative and thankful for the many expresˇsions of love and support that I've seen from people for many years. Every day I get letters; unfortunately, I can't answer them all, but I try to read them all. I've had a problem in the last weeks because about seven times a week at least I get letters from friends in Germany, but I, I am not quite able to read German yet! [Both laugh.] So I can't say I've read it all!
But I wish I could tell those people, you know, one on one, thank you! Thank you for taking the time to write to me, thank you for your thoughts, thank you for the good wishes, and thank you for the love and support. That I apˇpreciate it, that I feel it, and I'm immensely grateful.
MP: Mumia Abu-Jamal, thank you so very much for joining us.
MAJ: Thank you, Margaret.
Transcript & design: Michael Schiffmann
http://www.againstthecrimeofsilence.de
http://www.abu-jamal-news.com
Monday, September 24, 2007
Sunday, July 08, 2007
Legal Update
Dear Friends:
On May 17, 2007, we presented oral argument in the U.S. Court of Appeal of the Third Circuit, Philadelphia, on behalf of Mumia Abu-Jamal. Abu-Jamal v. Horn, U.S. Court of Appeals Nos. 01-9014, 02-9001 (death penalty). It was an extraordinary day in my experience of three decades of death penalty litigation. This was certainly the most promising legal proceeding since the arrest of my client over 25 years ago. At last there is light at the end of the tunnel. Even though there is no way to know when or how the federal court will rule, the three-judge panel's numerous questions certainly reflected their concern about what the prosecution had done wrong. A decision could be forthcoming anytime from mid-July to the fall.
It was encouraging to see the courtroom packed with supporters for my client. A large crowd also waited outside during the hearing. There were international observers from various countries including France, and a prominent human rights lawyer from Berlin who is also a member of the German parliament.
The focus of the federal court was on issues concerning the death penalty, misrepresentations by the prosecutor in his argument to the jury, and his racism in jury selection. The atmosphere was far different than previously experienced in this case, as reflected by the judges' overriding concern regarding misconduct by the prosecution. Early on one judge asked opposing counsel in reference to the prosecutor's misrepresentations to the jury during the 1982 trial: "Isn't that a denial of one of the rights secured by the Bill of Rights?" I therefore concluded the hearing by pointing out that even though it is judicially recognized that the Philadelphia District Attorney employed racism in cases both before and after that of Mr. Abu-Jamal, can anyone seriously believe that racism was not at work in this case involving an outspoken journalist who was a former member of the Black Panther Party and a supporter of MOVE's right to exist.
Even though Mr. Abu-Jamal began writing me in 1986, it was not until 2003 that I was finally able to agree to take over as lead counsel. Since then my focus has been on raising his level of credibility, convincing courts to give serious consideration to the many constitutional violations what have occurred in this complex case, and overcoming the errors of the past case lawyers. To date we have been largely successful. Interestingly, every motion I have filed since briefing was ordered federally has been granted.
Oral argument aimed to calmly and candidly dealing with the questions and concerns of the judges. It was not a time for political speeches or emotional-type arguments which I have successfully made before juries in countless murder cases. All possible arguments with supporting legal authority were previously made in our extensive written briefs. Supporting us with excellent briefs and argument was the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund, and the National Lawyers Guild, both of whom I brought into the case some years ago.
People frequently ask what can happen now. The federal court's choices involve various scenarios. These include remanding the case back to the U.S. District Court for further hearings, or granting an entirely new trial, or ordering a new jury trial limited to the penalty issue of life or death, or denying all relief with the case headed towards an execution. Our objective is a reversal of the conviction and death sentence, and the granting of a new trial.
The primary problem we have experienced in Mr. Abu-Jamal's case, in additional to prosecution misconduct and racism, has been mistakes made by prior counsel ranging from not pursing an adequate investigation to failing to raise certain fundamental issues, e.g., judicial bias at trial. This has been evident in the federal appeal, accentuated by some of the judges' questions on May 17. We have taken all possible steps to overcome these shortcomings.
The issues in the case of Mr. Abu-Jamal concern the right to a fair trial, the struggle against the death penalty, and the political repression of an outspoken journalist. Racism and politics are threads that have run through this case since his 1981 arrest. The issues under consideration, all of great constitutional significance, are:
Whether Mr. Abu-Jamal was denied the right to due process of law and a fair trial under the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution because of the prosecutor's "appeal-after-appeal" argument which encouraged the jury to disregard the presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt, and err on the side of guilt.
Whether the prosecution's use of peremptory challenges to exclude African Americans from sitting on the jury violated Mr. Abu-Jamal's rights to due process and equal protection of the law under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, and contravened Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986).
Whether the jury instructions and verdict form that resulted in the death penalty deprived Mr. Abu-Jamal of rights guaranteed by the Eight and Fourteenth Amendments to due process of law, equal protection of the law, and not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, and violated Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367 (1988), since the judge precluded the jurors from considering any mitigating evidence unless they all agreed on the existence of a particular circumstance.
Whether Mr. Abu-Jamal was denied due process and equal protection of the law under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments during post-conviction hearings as the result of the bias and racism of Judge Albert F. Sabo which included the comment that he was "going to help'em fry the nigger."
It is a pleasure to announce that we are once more engaged in briefing before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. On June 1, 2007, we filed on behalf of Mr. Abu-Jamal the opening Brief for Appellant. Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, Pa. Sup. Ct. No. 485, Capital Appeals Div. (death penalty). The issues presented include the prosecution falsely manipulating eyewitness testimony, and its use of fabricated evidence. There are procedural problems which occurred before I entered the case, these are issues of such constitutional importance that they must be aggressively pursued. A copy of our brief is attached.*
I am in this case to win a new and fair trial for Mr. Abu-Jamal. That is his and my wish. The goal is for his freedom following a retrial. Nevertheless, Mr. Abu-Jamal remains in great danger. If all is lost, he will be executed.
Your interest in this struggle for human rights and against the death penalty is appreciated.
Yours very truly,
Robert R. Bryan
London
[Law Offices of Robert R. Bryan
2088 Union Street, Suite 4
San Francisco, California 94123-4117]
Lead counsel for Mumia Abu-Jamal
* Download the brief at http://www.freemumia.com/pdfs/june2007.pdf
On May 17, 2007, we presented oral argument in the U.S. Court of Appeal of the Third Circuit, Philadelphia, on behalf of Mumia Abu-Jamal. Abu-Jamal v. Horn, U.S. Court of Appeals Nos. 01-9014, 02-9001 (death penalty). It was an extraordinary day in my experience of three decades of death penalty litigation. This was certainly the most promising legal proceeding since the arrest of my client over 25 years ago. At last there is light at the end of the tunnel. Even though there is no way to know when or how the federal court will rule, the three-judge panel's numerous questions certainly reflected their concern about what the prosecution had done wrong. A decision could be forthcoming anytime from mid-July to the fall.
It was encouraging to see the courtroom packed with supporters for my client. A large crowd also waited outside during the hearing. There were international observers from various countries including France, and a prominent human rights lawyer from Berlin who is also a member of the German parliament.
The focus of the federal court was on issues concerning the death penalty, misrepresentations by the prosecutor in his argument to the jury, and his racism in jury selection. The atmosphere was far different than previously experienced in this case, as reflected by the judges' overriding concern regarding misconduct by the prosecution. Early on one judge asked opposing counsel in reference to the prosecutor's misrepresentations to the jury during the 1982 trial: "Isn't that a denial of one of the rights secured by the Bill of Rights?" I therefore concluded the hearing by pointing out that even though it is judicially recognized that the Philadelphia District Attorney employed racism in cases both before and after that of Mr. Abu-Jamal, can anyone seriously believe that racism was not at work in this case involving an outspoken journalist who was a former member of the Black Panther Party and a supporter of MOVE's right to exist.
Even though Mr. Abu-Jamal began writing me in 1986, it was not until 2003 that I was finally able to agree to take over as lead counsel. Since then my focus has been on raising his level of credibility, convincing courts to give serious consideration to the many constitutional violations what have occurred in this complex case, and overcoming the errors of the past case lawyers. To date we have been largely successful. Interestingly, every motion I have filed since briefing was ordered federally has been granted.
Oral argument aimed to calmly and candidly dealing with the questions and concerns of the judges. It was not a time for political speeches or emotional-type arguments which I have successfully made before juries in countless murder cases. All possible arguments with supporting legal authority were previously made in our extensive written briefs. Supporting us with excellent briefs and argument was the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund, and the National Lawyers Guild, both of whom I brought into the case some years ago.
People frequently ask what can happen now. The federal court's choices involve various scenarios. These include remanding the case back to the U.S. District Court for further hearings, or granting an entirely new trial, or ordering a new jury trial limited to the penalty issue of life or death, or denying all relief with the case headed towards an execution. Our objective is a reversal of the conviction and death sentence, and the granting of a new trial.
The primary problem we have experienced in Mr. Abu-Jamal's case, in additional to prosecution misconduct and racism, has been mistakes made by prior counsel ranging from not pursing an adequate investigation to failing to raise certain fundamental issues, e.g., judicial bias at trial. This has been evident in the federal appeal, accentuated by some of the judges' questions on May 17. We have taken all possible steps to overcome these shortcomings.
The issues in the case of Mr. Abu-Jamal concern the right to a fair trial, the struggle against the death penalty, and the political repression of an outspoken journalist. Racism and politics are threads that have run through this case since his 1981 arrest. The issues under consideration, all of great constitutional significance, are:
Whether Mr. Abu-Jamal was denied the right to due process of law and a fair trial under the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution because of the prosecutor's "appeal-after-appeal" argument which encouraged the jury to disregard the presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt, and err on the side of guilt.
Whether the prosecution's use of peremptory challenges to exclude African Americans from sitting on the jury violated Mr. Abu-Jamal's rights to due process and equal protection of the law under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, and contravened Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986).
Whether the jury instructions and verdict form that resulted in the death penalty deprived Mr. Abu-Jamal of rights guaranteed by the Eight and Fourteenth Amendments to due process of law, equal protection of the law, and not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, and violated Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367 (1988), since the judge precluded the jurors from considering any mitigating evidence unless they all agreed on the existence of a particular circumstance.
Whether Mr. Abu-Jamal was denied due process and equal protection of the law under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments during post-conviction hearings as the result of the bias and racism of Judge Albert F. Sabo which included the comment that he was "going to help'em fry the nigger."
It is a pleasure to announce that we are once more engaged in briefing before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. On June 1, 2007, we filed on behalf of Mr. Abu-Jamal the opening Brief for Appellant. Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, Pa. Sup. Ct. No. 485, Capital Appeals Div. (death penalty). The issues presented include the prosecution falsely manipulating eyewitness testimony, and its use of fabricated evidence. There are procedural problems which occurred before I entered the case, these are issues of such constitutional importance that they must be aggressively pursued. A copy of our brief is attached.*
I am in this case to win a new and fair trial for Mr. Abu-Jamal. That is his and my wish. The goal is for his freedom following a retrial. Nevertheless, Mr. Abu-Jamal remains in great danger. If all is lost, he will be executed.
Your interest in this struggle for human rights and against the death penalty is appreciated.
Yours very truly,
Robert R. Bryan
London
[Law Offices of Robert R. Bryan
2088 Union Street, Suite 4
San Francisco, California 94123-4117]
Lead counsel for Mumia Abu-Jamal
* Download the brief at http://www.freemumia.com/pdfs/june2007.pdf
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Photos from June 15 event for the Harlem Campaign to Name a Street in Honor of Mumia Abu-Jamal
Pam AfricaCheck out the Free Mumia Abu-Jamal Coalition website for great pictures by lalroohk of the June 15 event calling for the naming of a Harlem Street for Mumia, "...pictures of the very exciting youth-oriented event of the Harlem Campaign to Name a Street in Honor of Mumia Abu-Jamal, starring Immortal Technique. Nana Soul, Orie Lumumba, and other young activists joined DeLacy Davis of Black Cops Against Police Brutality, Igwe Williams of the Guillermo Morales-Assat Shakur Center of City College, and an NAACP youth speaker from Jamaica in focusing on Mumia, police terror, and the criminalization of our youth. Strong support for Mumia and the street naming campaign was clearly evident in the many statements the performers and the audience made ending with a rousing statement from Pam Africa about the power of the people, and the demonstration of that power in the streets of Philadelphia on May 17th, as well as the very moving performance and statement from Immortal Technique."
Saturday, June 02, 2007
As lawyers appeal for new trial, rally demands: `FREE MUMIA'
By Betsey Piette
Philadelphia
Published May 24, 2007 12:38 AM
Over a thousand people rallied in support of death row, political prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal on May 17 outside the Federal Building in downtown Philadelphia, where a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit convened to hear oral arguments on his right to a new trial.
Around 200 Mumia supporters, including Dick Gregory, former U.S. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, Lynne Stewart, Kathleen Cleaver, and international delegates from France and Germany, were also eyewitnesses on Mumia's behalf inside the courtroom. Abu-Jamal was prohibited from attending this oral hearing.
Participants included busloads from New York and Boston; youth organized by FIST (Fight Imperialism, Stand Together) and Students for a Democratic Society, who traveled overnight from North Carolina; a car caravan from Georgia led by McKinney; and supporters from Richmond, Cleveland and as far away as Los Angeles and San Francisco. However, the overwhelming majority were from the Philadelphia area, many who took off from work to attend.
There were rallies supporting Abu-Jamal in several other U.S. cities (see page 7 round-up article) and demonstrations in many countries around the world, including France, Japan, Mexico, Turkey, Germany, the Netherlands, Canada, Sweden and Britain.
The oral arguments were presented before Chief Judge Anthony Scirica and Judge Robert Cowen, both Reagan appointees, and Judge Thomas Ambro, a Clinton appointee. All three appeared to be familiar with the arguments contained in written briefs filed by attorneys prior to the hearing. During their time on the Third Circuit all three have overturned capital convictions based on the same claim Abu-Jamal is making about race-based exclusion of jurors by the prosecution.
Abu-Jamal was represented by Attorneys Robert Bryan and Judith Ritter, along with NAACP Attorney Christina Swarns. They argued that racial bias in jury selection and improper instructions by the prosecutor to the jury during the sentencing phase of Abu-Jamal's 1982 murder trial provided grounds for a new trial. Arguing for the prosecution, Assistant District Attorney Hugh Burns presented the state's appeal of the December 2001 decision by Federal Judge William Yohn that overturned Abu-Jamal's death sentence even though he remains on death row.
Burns, who was the first to present, often referred to Abu-Jamal's court appointed attorney Anthony Jackson and his failure to file a complaint about racism in jury selection during the trial. Jackson, assigned to "represent" Mumia by Judge Albert Sabo, was disbarred in 1992 for drug abuse, yet the state is still using this attorney to prosecute Mumia 25 years later.
Jackson did file a pre-trial motion in March of 1982 requesting information on the racial composition of the entire venire (jury pool) because he strongly suspected that there would be a problem. However, his motion was denied by Sabo, and the fact that Jackson did not raise this concern again during the trial proceedings was used by Burns to argue that it should not be considered today.
The appellate judges devoted considerable time debating whether racism in jury selection could be determined if the racial makeup of the jury pool was unknown. When asked about the racial composition of the jury pool at Abu-Jamal's PCRA (Post Conviction Relief Act) hearing in 1995, Prosecutor Joseph McGill claimed he didn't remember. However, given that African Americans made up 44 percent of the population of Philadelphia in 1982, the fact that less than 15 percent (two out of fourteen) of the jurors at Abu-Jamal's trial were Black should be evidence enough.
The racial composition of the final pool of jurors is known. Twenty-eight out of forty-three were white and fifteen Black. Each side in a trial can use twenty challenges to eliminate potential jurors without stating why; however, these peremptory challenges may not be used to keep members of a particular race off the jury. McGill used 15 peremptory challenges to remove 10 of the 15 remaining Black jurors, but only five of the 28 whites.
An added factor in support of defense claims was the systematic pattern of exclusion of African Americans from juries by Philadelphia prosecutors around the time of Mumia's 1982 trial. This was addressed by Swarns, who presented oral arguments contained in an amicus brief on behalf of Abu-Jamal by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
The LDEF pioneered the affirmative use of civil actions to end jury discrimination. Their 31-page brief, which underscores the seriousness of the evidence of racial discrimination, can be found at www.naacpldf.org/content/pdf/jury/Abu-Jamal_v_Horn_amicus_brief.pdf.
The LDEF brief cites the 1986 case of Batson v. Kentucky, in which the Supreme Court declared that a criminal defendant who is able to prove that his trial prosecutor used peremptory challenges to exclude potential jurors on the basis of race is entitled to a new trial. Attorneys on behalf of Abu-Jamal are asking the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to consider the combination of factors that infer that his was unquestionably a racially charged case.
Case tainted with racism
Abu-Jamal is African-American and the victim was a white policeman. In the months between the Dec. 9, 1981, shooting death of Daniel Faulkner and the July 1982 trial, the local media continually emphasized the racial aspects of the case, particularly Abu-Jamal's membership in the Black Panther Party and his support of the MOVE organization, including the political prisoners known as the MOVE 9.
In his work as a journalist, Abu-Jamal often reported on prisons and police brutality and in one instance publicly challenged then Police Commissioner Frank Rizzo. He also wore his hair in dreadlocks at the time and the LDEF brief cites a Philadelphia Inquirer article from June 10, 1982, which stated, "Several prospective jurors left the courtroom Tuesday saying they were too upset and afraid to serve after being questioned by Abu-Jamal, who wears his hair in the dreadlocks style of the MOVE sect."
Swarns argued that the trial prosecutor in Abu-Jamal's case, Joseph McGill, had a history of systematically striking Black jurors. The LDEF brief notes that "a survey of homicide cases tried by Mr. McGill between September of 1981 and October 1983 reveal that he excluded prospective African-American venire persons approximately three times as often as he excluded non-black prospective jurors."
The brief points out that "A comprehensive statistical study of Philadelphia County death penalty cases tried between 1981 and 1997 reveals that, `in 317 capital trials in Philadelphia between 1981 and 1997, prosecutors struck 51 percent of black jurors and 26 percent of non black jurors.'" Both Swarns and Bryan made reference to a notorious video training tape prepared by Philadelphia D.A. Jack McMahon advocating the systematic exclusion of African-American prospective jurors based on his experience in the D.A.'s office.
Swarns also noted that African-American jurors were struck from the jury pool because they were unemployed, divorced or single parents, yet these criteria were not applied to white jurors. Black jurors were asked if they had heard Abu-Jamal on Black radio stations, yet white jurors were not asked if they had heard Abu-Jamal's commentaries that played on NPR. One African-American man was dismissed because he admitted to having a hearing problem, while a white juror who had to turn up his hearing aid to listen to Prosecutor McGill's questions was allowed to remain.
One African-American woman whom McGill picked for the jury because "she hated Abu-Jamal" was later thrown off by Sabo when she had to attend to a dying pet. She'd asked for a brief time off but was refused. Meanwhile Sabo adjourned the proceedings for an entire afternoon so that a white, male juror could take a civil service exam.
The issue of McGill's clearly inappropriate instructions to jurors during the July 1982 sentencing phase was addressed by Ritter who also questioned the legality of McGill's three-page verdict form.
Each death sentence must rest on two findings: proof beyond a reasonable doubt of at least one aggravating circumstance that would have increased the seriousness of the crime; and the finding that there are no mitigating circumstances sufficiently substantial to call for leniency in sentencing. The verdict form in Abu-Jamal's case consisted of a list of aggravators without any instructions on their application.
While the law doesn't require jurors to be unanimous when it comes to considering mitigating circumstances (for example, positive character witnesses or the fact that the defendant in this case had never been convicted of a crime), the verdict form provided no space for jurors to indicate that some jurors felt these were relevant even if not all agreed upon them.
In fact McGill's instructions gave jurors the impression that they had to be unanimous in order for mitigating circumstances to be considered. In addition, Ritter challenged the constitutionality of McGill's charge to the jury that it was alright if they gave Abu-Jamal the death sentence because he would have "appeal after appeal."
A third appeal by Abu-Jamal's attorneys argued that his 1995 PCRA hearing was constitutionally flawed because the judge—the same Judge Albert Sabo who tried Mumia's original case—was biased in favor of the prosecution. The PCRA transcript shows that Sabo denied subpoenas of witnesses requested by the defense, cut off defense lines of questioning and threatened Abu-Jamal's attorneys with contempt of court when they challenged him. One defense witness who testified to being coerced by prosecutors to lie in the 1982 trial, found herself arrested in the courtroom while she was still on the witness stand in the PCRA hearing.
Sabo's racism and bias against Abu-Jamal is also evidenced by his comment to another judge, "I'm going to help them fry the n****r," overheard by court stenographer Terri Maurer Carter.
`The Mumia rule'
While many of the cases cited as legal precedent by Abu-Jamal's attorneys have been grounds for the reversal of a number of convictions in capital cases, that is no guarantee of a new trial for Abu-Jamal. In a May 15, article by author Dave Lindorff and columnist Linn Washington Jr. titled "Justice System on Trial as Mumia Case Reaches Climax," they point out that over the course of Abu-Jamal's more than two-decade-long appeals process, the courts have shown a willingness to create special exceptions that apply only to him.
They note an example of what might be called `The Mumia Rule' that occurred in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The state's top judges in 1986 overturned a death sentence where McGill had made the same closing arguments to jurors at the conclusion of a murder trial presided over by none other than Sabo.
The state's top court declared that McGill's language had "minimized the jury's sense of responsibility for a verdict of death" and ordered a new trial. Three years later in 1989, this court reversed itself when it came to upholding Abu-Jamal's conviction. Eleven years later in 1997 the court flip-flopped again and barred such language by all prosecutors "in all future trials."
In his closing arguments during the May 17th hearing, defense attorney Robert Bryan made a point of this when he listed defendants whose capital cases have come before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals—Donald Hardcastle, Arnold Holloway, Curtis Brinson and Harold Wilson—whose convictions were overturned because of racial discrimination in the proceedings. "Are we to believe that there was no racism in this highly charged case in which a political Black defendant was accused of killing a white police officer; that his is the exception to the rule?" Bryan charged.
The three white, male judges appeared to take a cavalier view when discussing the "criteria" by which they would decide whether racism was a factor in this case. An example of this was their debate over what percentage of exclusion of African Americans from a jury would constitute "bias." At one point Judge Ambro even acknowledged that the intentional exclusion of even one juror on the basis of race violates Abu-Jamal's constitutional rights.
John Parker, a Mumia supporter who flew in from Los Angeles, told Workers World that "While some have applauded the judges for their `fair attitude' at the hearing, in the first place it's ridiculous that there had to be a hearing since there is more than ample proof that Mumia did not have a fair trial. The judges read the arguments before the trial started. They should have granted a new trial automatically. In the second place, if these judges were really concerned about fairness, truth and decency, they would see more of a sense of urgency in getting Mumia free, not waiting a month or so to make a decision while Mumia remains tortured under the conditions he's placed in on death row."
The judges are expected to return a ruling within the next 45 to 90 days.
Before, during and after the two-hour-plus legal proceedings, demonstrators took to the streets, including marching up Market Street and several times around City Hall, blocking traffic for nearly 30 minutes. The march was led by a sound truck packed with youthful supporters. Along the way, shoppers, motorists and workers on their lunch hour stopped to receive material on the case, ask questions and often express their support by honking their horns and waving their fists in the air.
Widespread support was also evident at three separate events the night before, including a reception at the Friends Center for Cynthia McKinney and the French delegation, a teach-in at Drexel University sponsored by Educators for Mumia, and a jam-packed hip-hop and spoken word performance at the Rotunda featuring Immortal Technique.
This community support is a critical factor in winning freedom for Mumia Abu-Jamal. For all the legal dancing around how the federal courts should weigh the claims raised by the attorneys, many suspect that this case will not be determined on the basis of law, but on the basis of the political movement mobilizing in the streets.
Speaking at the teach-in the night before the appellate hearing and at a public forum the following evening, German author and researcher Michael Schiffman provided stark evidence that a lot of people have lied in order to put Abu-Jamal on Pennsylvania's death row and to keep him there. Schiffman presented a slide show of photos taken by press photographer Pedro Polakoff that exposes police manipulation of the 1981 crime scene and contradicts statements made by key witnesses for the prosecution and is further evidence of prosecutorial misconduct. Schiffman noted, "To bring this to light would put many careers on the line—some in very high places."
Already an on-line petition is being circulated calling on the Third Circuit Court judges to do the right thing and rule in favor of a new trial, but organizing has to be done to raise broader awareness of the facts in the case and to prepare Abu-Jamal's supporters for what comes next. Toward this end, the Philadelphia International Action Center has issued a call for a meeting on May 29 at 7 p.m. at the Calvary Church, 48th and Baltimore in Philadelphia. Call 215-724-1618.
Piette was an eyewitness to the May 17 oral argument.
Articles copyright 1995-2007 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.
Philadelphia
Published May 24, 2007 12:38 AM
Over a thousand people rallied in support of death row, political prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal on May 17 outside the Federal Building in downtown Philadelphia, where a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit convened to hear oral arguments on his right to a new trial.
Around 200 Mumia supporters, including Dick Gregory, former U.S. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, Lynne Stewart, Kathleen Cleaver, and international delegates from France and Germany, were also eyewitnesses on Mumia's behalf inside the courtroom. Abu-Jamal was prohibited from attending this oral hearing.
Participants included busloads from New York and Boston; youth organized by FIST (Fight Imperialism, Stand Together) and Students for a Democratic Society, who traveled overnight from North Carolina; a car caravan from Georgia led by McKinney; and supporters from Richmond, Cleveland and as far away as Los Angeles and San Francisco. However, the overwhelming majority were from the Philadelphia area, many who took off from work to attend.
There were rallies supporting Abu-Jamal in several other U.S. cities (see page 7 round-up article) and demonstrations in many countries around the world, including France, Japan, Mexico, Turkey, Germany, the Netherlands, Canada, Sweden and Britain.
The oral arguments were presented before Chief Judge Anthony Scirica and Judge Robert Cowen, both Reagan appointees, and Judge Thomas Ambro, a Clinton appointee. All three appeared to be familiar with the arguments contained in written briefs filed by attorneys prior to the hearing. During their time on the Third Circuit all three have overturned capital convictions based on the same claim Abu-Jamal is making about race-based exclusion of jurors by the prosecution.
Abu-Jamal was represented by Attorneys Robert Bryan and Judith Ritter, along with NAACP Attorney Christina Swarns. They argued that racial bias in jury selection and improper instructions by the prosecutor to the jury during the sentencing phase of Abu-Jamal's 1982 murder trial provided grounds for a new trial. Arguing for the prosecution, Assistant District Attorney Hugh Burns presented the state's appeal of the December 2001 decision by Federal Judge William Yohn that overturned Abu-Jamal's death sentence even though he remains on death row.
Burns, who was the first to present, often referred to Abu-Jamal's court appointed attorney Anthony Jackson and his failure to file a complaint about racism in jury selection during the trial. Jackson, assigned to "represent" Mumia by Judge Albert Sabo, was disbarred in 1992 for drug abuse, yet the state is still using this attorney to prosecute Mumia 25 years later.
Jackson did file a pre-trial motion in March of 1982 requesting information on the racial composition of the entire venire (jury pool) because he strongly suspected that there would be a problem. However, his motion was denied by Sabo, and the fact that Jackson did not raise this concern again during the trial proceedings was used by Burns to argue that it should not be considered today.
The appellate judges devoted considerable time debating whether racism in jury selection could be determined if the racial makeup of the jury pool was unknown. When asked about the racial composition of the jury pool at Abu-Jamal's PCRA (Post Conviction Relief Act) hearing in 1995, Prosecutor Joseph McGill claimed he didn't remember. However, given that African Americans made up 44 percent of the population of Philadelphia in 1982, the fact that less than 15 percent (two out of fourteen) of the jurors at Abu-Jamal's trial were Black should be evidence enough.
The racial composition of the final pool of jurors is known. Twenty-eight out of forty-three were white and fifteen Black. Each side in a trial can use twenty challenges to eliminate potential jurors without stating why; however, these peremptory challenges may not be used to keep members of a particular race off the jury. McGill used 15 peremptory challenges to remove 10 of the 15 remaining Black jurors, but only five of the 28 whites.
An added factor in support of defense claims was the systematic pattern of exclusion of African Americans from juries by Philadelphia prosecutors around the time of Mumia's 1982 trial. This was addressed by Swarns, who presented oral arguments contained in an amicus brief on behalf of Abu-Jamal by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
The LDEF pioneered the affirmative use of civil actions to end jury discrimination. Their 31-page brief, which underscores the seriousness of the evidence of racial discrimination, can be found at www.naacpldf.org/content/pdf/jury/Abu-Jamal_v_Horn_amicus_brief.pdf.
The LDEF brief cites the 1986 case of Batson v. Kentucky, in which the Supreme Court declared that a criminal defendant who is able to prove that his trial prosecutor used peremptory challenges to exclude potential jurors on the basis of race is entitled to a new trial. Attorneys on behalf of Abu-Jamal are asking the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to consider the combination of factors that infer that his was unquestionably a racially charged case.
Case tainted with racism
Abu-Jamal is African-American and the victim was a white policeman. In the months between the Dec. 9, 1981, shooting death of Daniel Faulkner and the July 1982 trial, the local media continually emphasized the racial aspects of the case, particularly Abu-Jamal's membership in the Black Panther Party and his support of the MOVE organization, including the political prisoners known as the MOVE 9.
In his work as a journalist, Abu-Jamal often reported on prisons and police brutality and in one instance publicly challenged then Police Commissioner Frank Rizzo. He also wore his hair in dreadlocks at the time and the LDEF brief cites a Philadelphia Inquirer article from June 10, 1982, which stated, "Several prospective jurors left the courtroom Tuesday saying they were too upset and afraid to serve after being questioned by Abu-Jamal, who wears his hair in the dreadlocks style of the MOVE sect."
Swarns argued that the trial prosecutor in Abu-Jamal's case, Joseph McGill, had a history of systematically striking Black jurors. The LDEF brief notes that "a survey of homicide cases tried by Mr. McGill between September of 1981 and October 1983 reveal that he excluded prospective African-American venire persons approximately three times as often as he excluded non-black prospective jurors."
The brief points out that "A comprehensive statistical study of Philadelphia County death penalty cases tried between 1981 and 1997 reveals that, `in 317 capital trials in Philadelphia between 1981 and 1997, prosecutors struck 51 percent of black jurors and 26 percent of non black jurors.'" Both Swarns and Bryan made reference to a notorious video training tape prepared by Philadelphia D.A. Jack McMahon advocating the systematic exclusion of African-American prospective jurors based on his experience in the D.A.'s office.
Swarns also noted that African-American jurors were struck from the jury pool because they were unemployed, divorced or single parents, yet these criteria were not applied to white jurors. Black jurors were asked if they had heard Abu-Jamal on Black radio stations, yet white jurors were not asked if they had heard Abu-Jamal's commentaries that played on NPR. One African-American man was dismissed because he admitted to having a hearing problem, while a white juror who had to turn up his hearing aid to listen to Prosecutor McGill's questions was allowed to remain.
One African-American woman whom McGill picked for the jury because "she hated Abu-Jamal" was later thrown off by Sabo when she had to attend to a dying pet. She'd asked for a brief time off but was refused. Meanwhile Sabo adjourned the proceedings for an entire afternoon so that a white, male juror could take a civil service exam.
The issue of McGill's clearly inappropriate instructions to jurors during the July 1982 sentencing phase was addressed by Ritter who also questioned the legality of McGill's three-page verdict form.
Each death sentence must rest on two findings: proof beyond a reasonable doubt of at least one aggravating circumstance that would have increased the seriousness of the crime; and the finding that there are no mitigating circumstances sufficiently substantial to call for leniency in sentencing. The verdict form in Abu-Jamal's case consisted of a list of aggravators without any instructions on their application.
While the law doesn't require jurors to be unanimous when it comes to considering mitigating circumstances (for example, positive character witnesses or the fact that the defendant in this case had never been convicted of a crime), the verdict form provided no space for jurors to indicate that some jurors felt these were relevant even if not all agreed upon them.
In fact McGill's instructions gave jurors the impression that they had to be unanimous in order for mitigating circumstances to be considered. In addition, Ritter challenged the constitutionality of McGill's charge to the jury that it was alright if they gave Abu-Jamal the death sentence because he would have "appeal after appeal."
A third appeal by Abu-Jamal's attorneys argued that his 1995 PCRA hearing was constitutionally flawed because the judge—the same Judge Albert Sabo who tried Mumia's original case—was biased in favor of the prosecution. The PCRA transcript shows that Sabo denied subpoenas of witnesses requested by the defense, cut off defense lines of questioning and threatened Abu-Jamal's attorneys with contempt of court when they challenged him. One defense witness who testified to being coerced by prosecutors to lie in the 1982 trial, found herself arrested in the courtroom while she was still on the witness stand in the PCRA hearing.
Sabo's racism and bias against Abu-Jamal is also evidenced by his comment to another judge, "I'm going to help them fry the n****r," overheard by court stenographer Terri Maurer Carter.
`The Mumia rule'
While many of the cases cited as legal precedent by Abu-Jamal's attorneys have been grounds for the reversal of a number of convictions in capital cases, that is no guarantee of a new trial for Abu-Jamal. In a May 15, article by author Dave Lindorff and columnist Linn Washington Jr. titled "Justice System on Trial as Mumia Case Reaches Climax," they point out that over the course of Abu-Jamal's more than two-decade-long appeals process, the courts have shown a willingness to create special exceptions that apply only to him.
They note an example of what might be called `The Mumia Rule' that occurred in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The state's top judges in 1986 overturned a death sentence where McGill had made the same closing arguments to jurors at the conclusion of a murder trial presided over by none other than Sabo.
The state's top court declared that McGill's language had "minimized the jury's sense of responsibility for a verdict of death" and ordered a new trial. Three years later in 1989, this court reversed itself when it came to upholding Abu-Jamal's conviction. Eleven years later in 1997 the court flip-flopped again and barred such language by all prosecutors "in all future trials."
In his closing arguments during the May 17th hearing, defense attorney Robert Bryan made a point of this when he listed defendants whose capital cases have come before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals—Donald Hardcastle, Arnold Holloway, Curtis Brinson and Harold Wilson—whose convictions were overturned because of racial discrimination in the proceedings. "Are we to believe that there was no racism in this highly charged case in which a political Black defendant was accused of killing a white police officer; that his is the exception to the rule?" Bryan charged.
The three white, male judges appeared to take a cavalier view when discussing the "criteria" by which they would decide whether racism was a factor in this case. An example of this was their debate over what percentage of exclusion of African Americans from a jury would constitute "bias." At one point Judge Ambro even acknowledged that the intentional exclusion of even one juror on the basis of race violates Abu-Jamal's constitutional rights.
John Parker, a Mumia supporter who flew in from Los Angeles, told Workers World that "While some have applauded the judges for their `fair attitude' at the hearing, in the first place it's ridiculous that there had to be a hearing since there is more than ample proof that Mumia did not have a fair trial. The judges read the arguments before the trial started. They should have granted a new trial automatically. In the second place, if these judges were really concerned about fairness, truth and decency, they would see more of a sense of urgency in getting Mumia free, not waiting a month or so to make a decision while Mumia remains tortured under the conditions he's placed in on death row."
The judges are expected to return a ruling within the next 45 to 90 days.
Before, during and after the two-hour-plus legal proceedings, demonstrators took to the streets, including marching up Market Street and several times around City Hall, blocking traffic for nearly 30 minutes. The march was led by a sound truck packed with youthful supporters. Along the way, shoppers, motorists and workers on their lunch hour stopped to receive material on the case, ask questions and often express their support by honking their horns and waving their fists in the air.
Widespread support was also evident at three separate events the night before, including a reception at the Friends Center for Cynthia McKinney and the French delegation, a teach-in at Drexel University sponsored by Educators for Mumia, and a jam-packed hip-hop and spoken word performance at the Rotunda featuring Immortal Technique.
This community support is a critical factor in winning freedom for Mumia Abu-Jamal. For all the legal dancing around how the federal courts should weigh the claims raised by the attorneys, many suspect that this case will not be determined on the basis of law, but on the basis of the political movement mobilizing in the streets.
Speaking at the teach-in the night before the appellate hearing and at a public forum the following evening, German author and researcher Michael Schiffman provided stark evidence that a lot of people have lied in order to put Abu-Jamal on Pennsylvania's death row and to keep him there. Schiffman presented a slide show of photos taken by press photographer Pedro Polakoff that exposes police manipulation of the 1981 crime scene and contradicts statements made by key witnesses for the prosecution and is further evidence of prosecutorial misconduct. Schiffman noted, "To bring this to light would put many careers on the line—some in very high places."
Already an on-line petition is being circulated calling on the Third Circuit Court judges to do the right thing and rule in favor of a new trial, but organizing has to be done to raise broader awareness of the facts in the case and to prepare Abu-Jamal's supporters for what comes next. Toward this end, the Philadelphia International Action Center has issued a call for a meeting on May 29 at 7 p.m. at the Calvary Church, 48th and Baltimore in Philadelphia. Call 215-724-1618.
Piette was an eyewitness to the May 17 oral argument.
Articles copyright 1995-2007 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.
POCC report back on Mumia's Philly hearing
by Minister of Information JR
Wednesday, 23 May 2007
This crew of MOVE children was tellin' the people why we need to continue supporting political prisoners like Mumia Abu Jamal, the MOVE 9 and others. This photo was taken on May 17 outside of the Philly courtroom where political prisoner Mumia Abu Jamal's fate was being argued by his defense attorneys and the state's attorneys. The MOVE family have been continuously terrorized by the Philly holice over the years, including in 1985 when a bomb was dropped on their house and a total of over 60 homes burned to the ground, killing women, children and animals. Journalist Mumia Abu Jamal covered a number of stories dealing wit' the MOVE 1978 confrontation wit' the holice where many of the MOVE 9 were beat and stomped, and one holice died from "friendly fire." And although that was a well known fact, the MOVE 9 have been locked up every since on this trumped up murder. Free 'Em All!
Oral arguments were heard in the case of political prisoner Mumia Abu Jamal on May 17 in a Philadelphia courtroom filled to its 250-person capacity. In the hot sun outside the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, hundreds of people rallied, awaiting news about what was going on behind the judicial closed doors.
Well known people like former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney were walking around doing interviews, Chairman Fred Hampton Jr. was helping Pam Africa and her crew to keep the rallying crowd organized, while a group of about seven MOVE children under the age of 10 were proclaiming through the mic the reason why we were here.
Inside the courtroom, American Indian Movement member and author Ward Churchill and former Black Panther turned lawyer Kathleen Cleaver were among the many supporters of Mumia Abu Jamal who witnessed the oral arguments. The stars of this show were Mumia's two female attorneys, one from the NAACP, whom many inside the courtroom said was razor sharp when it was time to make what could be the last presentation to save the life and free this political prisoner, who has been languishing in a concentration camp for the last two and a half decades on trumped up charges of murdering a police officer.
Political rapper Immortal Technique was the headliner at the "Free Mumia" concert in Philly last week. He has been a continuous supporter of political prisoners across the country.
After the hearing, when the lead attorney, Robert Bryan, came out of the courtroom, he was swarmed by reporters and supporters who were thirsty for news about what went down. He talked for about 15 minutes, discussing the constitutional and human rights violations that occurred during Mumia's trial, including a huge number of Black potential jurors illegally eliminated from the jury pool by the prosecution before the trial started. After he said what he had to say and left, many of the people who were in the courtroom talked about how the three judges hearing the appeal seemed to side with Mumia after scrutinizing the prosecution's case.
Soon after Robert Bryan's presentation to the supporters and the media, the people marched about two and a half miles through the Philadelphia streets to City Hall, wit' hundreds of people of all ages and nationalities led by a flatbed truck, which was the moving stage. One of Mumia's daughters, the rapper Goldie-Locks, spoke and rhymed about the case and the reasons why we should continue to support Mumia and other political prisoners, while her sister kicked back and physically assisted her.
A number of young people who work with the International Concerned Family and Friends of Mumia Abu Jamal led chants between the different speakers. One of the more notable ones was a sista from South Africa, who did spirited "Free Mumia" chants accompanied by what I call the "Soweto Stomp," which was the stomp that accompanied many South African chants in their struggle against apartheid.
Reaching our destination, we marched along the street where City Hall is on one side and a construction site on the other. As the crowd passed the construction site, the mostly white construction workers starting throwing rocks and bricks at the people and putting up signs that said "Kill Mumia."
Mumia rally Philly Mumia's daughter GoldieLocks 051707 by JR.jpg CAPTION #3: Goldilocks, daughter of political prisoner Mumia Abu Jamal, was on the back of a flat-bed truck stage talkin' and rappin' about her father's case during a march through the streets of Philly from the courthouse to City Hall on May 17 after oral arguments in Mumia's case.
Pam Africa, the uncompromising chairwoman of the International Concerned Family and Friends of Mumia Abu Jamal, got on the mic and told the people that "we're not no muthafucking pacifists" among other things and told the holice who were escorting the march that they better get involved or the people will address these construction workers in whatever fashion that we see suitable. After a few minutes, the whole construction site of about 100 workers was shut down as we continued our rally. Chairman Fred Hampton Jr. was the next speaker and the crowd cheered as he said, "We're shuttin' down construction sites today, and systems tomorrow."
As the rally settled on the steps of City Hall, former political prisoner Ramona Africa, who survived the MOVE house bombing in `85, told the crowd not to get lax because of what happened in court, because many times the judges act like they are on our side, but when the judgment comes down, their rulings support the prosecution.
As the day came to an end, many of the organizers traded notes on what we were going to do in the next 45-90 days, which is the time allotted for the three judges to come wit' a decision. I definitely want to give a People's Salute to all of the people who came out there to souljah on behalf of political prisoner and revolutionary journalist Mumia Abu Jamal. Stay tuned to the Bay View for more updates.
Email POCC Minister of Information JR at blockreportradio@gmail.com. This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it , and listen to the Block Report at hiphopwarreport.com or myspace.com/blockreportfilm.
Wednesday, 23 May 2007
This crew of MOVE children was tellin' the people why we need to continue supporting political prisoners like Mumia Abu Jamal, the MOVE 9 and others. This photo was taken on May 17 outside of the Philly courtroom where political prisoner Mumia Abu Jamal's fate was being argued by his defense attorneys and the state's attorneys. The MOVE family have been continuously terrorized by the Philly holice over the years, including in 1985 when a bomb was dropped on their house and a total of over 60 homes burned to the ground, killing women, children and animals. Journalist Mumia Abu Jamal covered a number of stories dealing wit' the MOVE 1978 confrontation wit' the holice where many of the MOVE 9 were beat and stomped, and one holice died from "friendly fire." And although that was a well known fact, the MOVE 9 have been locked up every since on this trumped up murder. Free 'Em All!
Oral arguments were heard in the case of political prisoner Mumia Abu Jamal on May 17 in a Philadelphia courtroom filled to its 250-person capacity. In the hot sun outside the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, hundreds of people rallied, awaiting news about what was going on behind the judicial closed doors.
Well known people like former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney were walking around doing interviews, Chairman Fred Hampton Jr. was helping Pam Africa and her crew to keep the rallying crowd organized, while a group of about seven MOVE children under the age of 10 were proclaiming through the mic the reason why we were here.
Inside the courtroom, American Indian Movement member and author Ward Churchill and former Black Panther turned lawyer Kathleen Cleaver were among the many supporters of Mumia Abu Jamal who witnessed the oral arguments. The stars of this show were Mumia's two female attorneys, one from the NAACP, whom many inside the courtroom said was razor sharp when it was time to make what could be the last presentation to save the life and free this political prisoner, who has been languishing in a concentration camp for the last two and a half decades on trumped up charges of murdering a police officer.
Political rapper Immortal Technique was the headliner at the "Free Mumia" concert in Philly last week. He has been a continuous supporter of political prisoners across the country.
After the hearing, when the lead attorney, Robert Bryan, came out of the courtroom, he was swarmed by reporters and supporters who were thirsty for news about what went down. He talked for about 15 minutes, discussing the constitutional and human rights violations that occurred during Mumia's trial, including a huge number of Black potential jurors illegally eliminated from the jury pool by the prosecution before the trial started. After he said what he had to say and left, many of the people who were in the courtroom talked about how the three judges hearing the appeal seemed to side with Mumia after scrutinizing the prosecution's case.
Soon after Robert Bryan's presentation to the supporters and the media, the people marched about two and a half miles through the Philadelphia streets to City Hall, wit' hundreds of people of all ages and nationalities led by a flatbed truck, which was the moving stage. One of Mumia's daughters, the rapper Goldie-Locks, spoke and rhymed about the case and the reasons why we should continue to support Mumia and other political prisoners, while her sister kicked back and physically assisted her.
A number of young people who work with the International Concerned Family and Friends of Mumia Abu Jamal led chants between the different speakers. One of the more notable ones was a sista from South Africa, who did spirited "Free Mumia" chants accompanied by what I call the "Soweto Stomp," which was the stomp that accompanied many South African chants in their struggle against apartheid.
Reaching our destination, we marched along the street where City Hall is on one side and a construction site on the other. As the crowd passed the construction site, the mostly white construction workers starting throwing rocks and bricks at the people and putting up signs that said "Kill Mumia."
Mumia rally Philly Mumia's daughter GoldieLocks 051707 by JR.jpg CAPTION #3: Goldilocks, daughter of political prisoner Mumia Abu Jamal, was on the back of a flat-bed truck stage talkin' and rappin' about her father's case during a march through the streets of Philly from the courthouse to City Hall on May 17 after oral arguments in Mumia's case.
Pam Africa, the uncompromising chairwoman of the International Concerned Family and Friends of Mumia Abu Jamal, got on the mic and told the people that "we're not no muthafucking pacifists" among other things and told the holice who were escorting the march that they better get involved or the people will address these construction workers in whatever fashion that we see suitable. After a few minutes, the whole construction site of about 100 workers was shut down as we continued our rally. Chairman Fred Hampton Jr. was the next speaker and the crowd cheered as he said, "We're shuttin' down construction sites today, and systems tomorrow."
As the rally settled on the steps of City Hall, former political prisoner Ramona Africa, who survived the MOVE house bombing in `85, told the crowd not to get lax because of what happened in court, because many times the judges act like they are on our side, but when the judgment comes down, their rulings support the prosecution.
As the day came to an end, many of the organizers traded notes on what we were going to do in the next 45-90 days, which is the time allotted for the three judges to come wit' a decision. I definitely want to give a People's Salute to all of the people who came out there to souljah on behalf of political prisoner and revolutionary journalist Mumia Abu Jamal. Stay tuned to the Bay View for more updates.
Email POCC Minister of Information JR at blockreportradio@gmail.com. This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it , and listen to the Block Report at hiphopwarreport.com or myspace.com/blockreportfilm.
IPS Article: Retrial Possible for Mumia
DEATH PENALTY-US: Retrial Possible for Most Famous Black Inmate
Adrianne Appel
BOSTON, May 28 (IPS) - The talents and skills of leading U.S. lawyers, pathologists, scientists and independent criminal investigators are likely to be marshalled to save the life of Mumia Abu-Jamal if he is granted a new trial -- and also to highlight the role skin colour may play in U.S. death penalty convictions.
After nearly two decades of appeals, on May 17 a U.S. federal court of appeals took its first step towards possibly ordering a new trial for Abu-Jamal, one of the best-known among the country's 3,500 death row inmates. The decision of the panel of judges is expected to take several months in what has become one of the most controversial death penalty cases of all times.
Robert Bryan, the lawyer leading the battle for Abu-Jamal's life over the past four years, believes his client's case is very strong and that the appeal judges may order a new trial. Now for the first time since Abu-Jamal's conviction in 1982, the U.S. justice system is seriously considering whether racial discrimination and political bias interfered with Abu-Jamal's right to a fair trial.
"My goal is for him to go home to his family. That is the best of outcomes," Bryan told IPS.
Abu-Jamal, an outspoken political activist as a young man and still today from prison, was convicted by a nearly all-white jury in Philadelphia of the murder of policeman Daniel Faulkner. Faulkner was killed after he stopped a car driven by Abu-Jamal's brother in December 1981. Abu-Jamal was said to have run from his taxi to the scene and was arrested.
The facts of the crime are disputed. Eyewitness accounts are contradictory. Evidence is incomplete and has gone missing. Abu-Jamal was wounded in the chest by a bullet. Abu-Jamal has always maintained his innocence.
"The thread that runs through this case from the day Mumia was arrested until today is racism. At the original trial, the jury only heard one side of the coin. It was a comedy of errors. This case has never been properly investigated," Bryan said.
At the appeals hearing, Bryan and others argued that Abu-Jamal's original trial was unfair because blacks were intentionally excluded from the jury, a violation of the U.S. Constitution. The final jury consisted of 10 whites and two blacks. The population of Philadelphia at the time was 40 percent African American.
"What matters is that African American citizens were denied their right to participate in this important civic right and duty on the basis of race," Christina Swarns, a lawyer with the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People Legal Defence Fund, told IPS. "The questions of fairness have been there since the time the jury was chosen. Had the Pennsylvanian courts followed the law, this hearing would have been held many, many years ago -- and should have been."
There were other problems with the 1982 trial, Bryan said. The prosecutor misled the jury into believing that if they agreed to send Abu-Jamal to death row, the chance of him actually being executed was low. And the judge who presided over the trial, Albert Sabo, aimed a racial slur at the young journalist during a recess in the trial, Bryan said.
Sabo also had a conflict of interest and should never have presided over the trial, Jill Soffiyah Elijah, a member of the National Lawyer's Guild, told IPS. He was an active member of the Fraternal Order of Police, a powerful group that represents the interests of police and lobbies for the death penalty in cases where police officers have been murdered.
"They have lobbied heavily for Mr. Abu-Jamal's execution," said Elijah, also a professor at Harvard University. "Judge Sabo's involvement indicated a conflict of interest and compromised his ability to be objective."
According to reports elsewhere, Sabo, who died in 2002, was nicknamed "the hanging judge". In a 14 year period, he presided over trials in which 31 defendants were sentenced to death, more than any other U.S. judge. Twenty-nine of these came from ethnic minorities.
While Abu-Jamal's lawyers used the appeals court hearing to push for a new trial, prosecutors urged the judges to re-affirm his death row conviction. Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell has stated publicly that if the judges did this, he would order Abu-Jamal's execution.
Rendell has a long-standing interest in Abu-Jamal's case. He was Philadelphia district chief prosecutor in 1982, and it was his office and his employees who prosecuted Abu-Jamal.
In the past the district prosecutor's office had been involved in a pattern of discrimination in many cases, Bryan said. This included presenting false evidence and getting witnesses to lie. He was optimistic that the federal appeal judges would acknowledge this and allow Abu-Jamal a new trial.
"My goal is to win this case," Bryan said. "We have a lot of new evidence. If we can get a trial, it will be presented to the new jury. A lot of new pathology, DNA and ballistics will be done. I have faith that 12 men and women of the jury will let my client go home."
But Bryan would want to move the case out of Philadelphia. "There is so much corruption and unfairness in the Philadelphia court system, it's hard to imagine getting a fair trial," Bryan said.
Abu-Jamal, now 53, has won thousands of supporters around the world. "When they put him on death row, they thought they would shut him down," Bryan said. "Instead, Mumia has become an international symbol against the death penalty."
His supporters include Hollywood celebrities, politicians and university students. In St. Denis, France, a street is named after him.
At the appeals hearing, about 200 people packed the courtroom. Outside about 500 people demonstrated on Abu-Jamal's behalf. Supporters came from France, Germany and elsewhere. (END/2007)
Adrianne Appel
BOSTON, May 28 (IPS) - The talents and skills of leading U.S. lawyers, pathologists, scientists and independent criminal investigators are likely to be marshalled to save the life of Mumia Abu-Jamal if he is granted a new trial -- and also to highlight the role skin colour may play in U.S. death penalty convictions.
After nearly two decades of appeals, on May 17 a U.S. federal court of appeals took its first step towards possibly ordering a new trial for Abu-Jamal, one of the best-known among the country's 3,500 death row inmates. The decision of the panel of judges is expected to take several months in what has become one of the most controversial death penalty cases of all times.
Robert Bryan, the lawyer leading the battle for Abu-Jamal's life over the past four years, believes his client's case is very strong and that the appeal judges may order a new trial. Now for the first time since Abu-Jamal's conviction in 1982, the U.S. justice system is seriously considering whether racial discrimination and political bias interfered with Abu-Jamal's right to a fair trial.
"My goal is for him to go home to his family. That is the best of outcomes," Bryan told IPS.
Abu-Jamal, an outspoken political activist as a young man and still today from prison, was convicted by a nearly all-white jury in Philadelphia of the murder of policeman Daniel Faulkner. Faulkner was killed after he stopped a car driven by Abu-Jamal's brother in December 1981. Abu-Jamal was said to have run from his taxi to the scene and was arrested.
The facts of the crime are disputed. Eyewitness accounts are contradictory. Evidence is incomplete and has gone missing. Abu-Jamal was wounded in the chest by a bullet. Abu-Jamal has always maintained his innocence.
"The thread that runs through this case from the day Mumia was arrested until today is racism. At the original trial, the jury only heard one side of the coin. It was a comedy of errors. This case has never been properly investigated," Bryan said.
At the appeals hearing, Bryan and others argued that Abu-Jamal's original trial was unfair because blacks were intentionally excluded from the jury, a violation of the U.S. Constitution. The final jury consisted of 10 whites and two blacks. The population of Philadelphia at the time was 40 percent African American.
"What matters is that African American citizens were denied their right to participate in this important civic right and duty on the basis of race," Christina Swarns, a lawyer with the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People Legal Defence Fund, told IPS. "The questions of fairness have been there since the time the jury was chosen. Had the Pennsylvanian courts followed the law, this hearing would have been held many, many years ago -- and should have been."
There were other problems with the 1982 trial, Bryan said. The prosecutor misled the jury into believing that if they agreed to send Abu-Jamal to death row, the chance of him actually being executed was low. And the judge who presided over the trial, Albert Sabo, aimed a racial slur at the young journalist during a recess in the trial, Bryan said.
Sabo also had a conflict of interest and should never have presided over the trial, Jill Soffiyah Elijah, a member of the National Lawyer's Guild, told IPS. He was an active member of the Fraternal Order of Police, a powerful group that represents the interests of police and lobbies for the death penalty in cases where police officers have been murdered.
"They have lobbied heavily for Mr. Abu-Jamal's execution," said Elijah, also a professor at Harvard University. "Judge Sabo's involvement indicated a conflict of interest and compromised his ability to be objective."
According to reports elsewhere, Sabo, who died in 2002, was nicknamed "the hanging judge". In a 14 year period, he presided over trials in which 31 defendants were sentenced to death, more than any other U.S. judge. Twenty-nine of these came from ethnic minorities.
While Abu-Jamal's lawyers used the appeals court hearing to push for a new trial, prosecutors urged the judges to re-affirm his death row conviction. Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell has stated publicly that if the judges did this, he would order Abu-Jamal's execution.
Rendell has a long-standing interest in Abu-Jamal's case. He was Philadelphia district chief prosecutor in 1982, and it was his office and his employees who prosecuted Abu-Jamal.
In the past the district prosecutor's office had been involved in a pattern of discrimination in many cases, Bryan said. This included presenting false evidence and getting witnesses to lie. He was optimistic that the federal appeal judges would acknowledge this and allow Abu-Jamal a new trial.
"My goal is to win this case," Bryan said. "We have a lot of new evidence. If we can get a trial, it will be presented to the new jury. A lot of new pathology, DNA and ballistics will be done. I have faith that 12 men and women of the jury will let my client go home."
But Bryan would want to move the case out of Philadelphia. "There is so much corruption and unfairness in the Philadelphia court system, it's hard to imagine getting a fair trial," Bryan said.
Abu-Jamal, now 53, has won thousands of supporters around the world. "When they put him on death row, they thought they would shut him down," Bryan said. "Instead, Mumia has become an international symbol against the death penalty."
His supporters include Hollywood celebrities, politicians and university students. In St. Denis, France, a street is named after him.
At the appeals hearing, about 200 people packed the courtroom. Outside about 500 people demonstrated on Abu-Jamal's behalf. Supporters came from France, Germany and elsewhere. (END/2007)
Get Involved in the Harlem Campaign to Name a Street in Honor of Mumia Abu-Jamal
6pm, FRIDAY, JUNE 15
ST. MARY'S CHURCH
521 West 126th Street
(Bet. Broadway and Amsterdam)
FREE ADMISSION!
Refreshments will be available
Topics will include:
Update on where Mumia's case stands in the courts and the streets, The murder of Sean Bell and the criminalization of our youth, Police Terror and repression, fighting back, waging the street naming campaign, AND MORE!
Mumia Abu-Jamal, an activist by the time he was 14 years old, was beaten by cops and arrested for protesting the rabid racist George Wallace when Wallace was campaigning for the presidency in the 60's. By the time Mumia was 15 the FBI had developed a file on him. Mumia became the Minister of Information for the Philadelphia chapter of the Black Panther Party when he was 16 years old. In his 20's as a journalist, Mumia reported on the Black radical MOVE organization, who Philadelphia politicians and police hated with passion. At the first chance they had, they framed him for killing a cop and sentenced him to death in a racist, kangaroo court. Today with the murder of Sean Bell, and widespread criminalization of innocent youth, we see that you don't even have to be politically active to draw police attack and repression. Come on June 15th to support Mumia at this critical stage of his case where the courts can grant: execution, life in prison without parole, or a new trial! Learn about how his case is connected to the oppression of our communities right here in Harlem.
Speakers include:
City Councilman Charles Barron, Pam Africa, Igwe Williams of the Guillermo Morales-Assata Shakur Center of City College, Attorney Michael Tarif Warren, Harold Wilsom (122nd exonerated death-row resident), Jasbir Finpho of the Jamaica NAACP Youth Council, Sandra Rivers, Harlem Activist, and others!
There will also be a brief video of the street naming activities in the French cities of Saint-Denis and Marseille.
Download the flyer at: http://www.freemumia.com/pdfs/june15pdf.pdf
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Verdict Nullification? Like it or not, Mumia may get a new trial.
by Dave Lindorff
Published: May 23, 2007
When the name Mumia Abu-Jamal comes up in local conversation, the debate immediately begins over whether he is guilty of a murder that has kept him on Pennsylvania's death row for 25 years. Rarely does it address the underlying question of whether he had a fair trial or appeal process.
Now, three 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judges are mulling key elements that pertain to that very crucial question. They are also considering whether to uphold a 2001 decision by Federal District Judge William Yohn that overturned Abu-Jamal's death sentence for the Dec. 9, 1981, murder of Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner.
The key claim argued before the three-judge panel during a two-and-a-half-hour hearing last Thursday (May 17) in the packed Ceremonial Courtroom of the federal courthouse was whether the prosecutor at the 1982 trial, Joseph McGill, improperly removed potential qualified jurors because of race.
In 1995, the District Attorney's office admitted that McGill used 10 of 15 peremptory challenges requests to strike jurors from consideration, for which no reason has to be given to remove black jurors who otherwise met the requirements to be on the panel, including a willingness to vote for death. This means that, of 14 possible qualified African-American jurors, McGill eliminated 10. That compares to only five white jurors that he peremptorily dismissed out of a possible 25. And it left Abu-Jamal's jury with nine whites and three blacks in a city that was 44 percent black (the gap widened when a black juror was removed by the judge and replaced by a white alternate, with the enthusiastic endorsement of McGill).
On its face, that would seem to be prima facie evidence of racial discrimination that would normally warrant a hearing, but there is more: Over the course of six murder trials that he tried, McGill used his peremptory challenges to remove 74 percent of qualified black jurors, compared to only 25 percent of white jurors. Moreover, McGill's methods were part of a pattern prevailing during the two terms of McGill's boss, then D.A. Ed Rendell. Under Rendell, prosecutors barred 58 percent of all blacks via peremptory challenges, compared to just 22 percent of whites.
Abu-Jamal's lead attorney, Robert R. Bryan, cited these statistics and noted that during jury questioning, McGill asked different questions of blacks than whites, and used different standards in deciding whom to remove.
Rather than contest the statistics and other evidence of racial discrimination in jury selection, Hugh Burns the head of the DA's appeals unit, he argued the state's case against Abu-Jamal claimed that Abu-Jamal had no right to raise the issue in federal court. Burns alleged that Abu-Jamal had missed his chance to do so in 1995, during his Post-Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) hearing, or subsequent appeal to the state supreme court.
The problem with the DA's argument? Much evidence of race-based jury selection did not come to light until 1998, a year after Abu-Jamal's final appeal had been decided. Since Abu-Jamal couldn't have had that evidence until his state appeal was over, it was first presented in his federal habeas appeal in 1999.
A second line of appeal by Abu-Jamal, briefly discussed at last week's hearing, was a statement made by McGill during his summation on the last day of the trial; he told jurors that if they had doubts about the defendant's guilt, they needn't worry, because, "If you find the defendant guilty of course there would be appeal after appeal and perhaps there could be a reversal of the case, or whatever, so that may not be final." (Juries are supposed to reach a guilty verdict only if the case was proven "beyond a reasonable doubt.") This was no slip by McGill, who used identical language in another case, which is why the state Supreme Court, in 1986, overturned that defendant's death sentence.
Now, Abu-Jamal is asking the appeals court to overturn his conviction on the same grounds. He seemed to have won some support from at least one judge, Robert Cowen.
When prosecutor Burns argued that McGill's statement could justify only overturning a sentence, not conviction, Cowen asked, "But isn't what the prosecutor said a denial of [the defendant's] right to a fair trial?"
There were many problems with Abu-Jamal's trial, his lawyers and supporters maintain. He was provided with almost no funds for ballistics or forensic experts. Records of interrogations show that prosecution witnesses were pressured by police over the course of six months to alter their testimony to comport with the prosecution's crime scenario. For example, white taxi driver Robert Chobert, who originally told police the shooter had fled the scene, later graphically described seeing Abu-Jamal do the shooting, execution-style. Chobert was uniquely vulnerable to pressure from prosecutors he had been driving on a license that had been suspended for a DWI conviction, and was also on five-years' probation for felony arson in the fire-bombing of an elementary school for money. Neither this information nor the fact that he had asked the DA to help him "fix" his license was allowed to go to the jury.
The point is that when people develop opinions about this controversial case, particularly in Philadelphia, they tend to base them on the fact of Abu-Jamal's conviction, and then, working on the assumption that the jury accepted the facts as presented at trial to be true, go on to proclaim him guilty of Faulkner's murder.
What if the conviction itself, however, was the result of a pre-selection of jurors inclined to believe the prosecutor, think Judge Albert Sabo was fair and believe police officers and prosecution witnesses? And if, moreover, those jurors were allowed to be assured by the prosecutor that the standard for conviction needn't be "proof beyond a reasonable doubt," then what certainty is there about any of the "facts" presented at the trial, or about the verdict?
This is why the appeal now being considered by the three judges of the 3rd Circuit Chief Judge Anthony Scirica, Judge Cowen and Judge Thomas Ambro is critical. If justice and the hallowed constitutional right to a fair trial are to have any real meaning in the United States, it is essential that juries be chosen in a manner that is fair, not stacked, and it is essential that if the resulting jury convicts especially in a capital case it be on the basis of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."
As the arguments presented at the 3rd Circuit hearing made clear, there are solid reasons to doubt that either of those things happened in Abu-Jamal's case. Philadelphians need to be prepared to accept that if at least two judges on the appeals court panel reach that conclusion, there will be no way to convincingly argue that Abu-Jamal "did it," until the evidence is presented fairly at a new trial.
(editorial@citypaper.net)
Dave Lindorff, a Philadelphia-area investigative journalist and columnist, is author of Killing Time: An Investigation into the Death Penalty Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal (Common Courage Press, 2004).
Published: May 23, 2007
When the name Mumia Abu-Jamal comes up in local conversation, the debate immediately begins over whether he is guilty of a murder that has kept him on Pennsylvania's death row for 25 years. Rarely does it address the underlying question of whether he had a fair trial or appeal process.
Now, three 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judges are mulling key elements that pertain to that very crucial question. They are also considering whether to uphold a 2001 decision by Federal District Judge William Yohn that overturned Abu-Jamal's death sentence for the Dec. 9, 1981, murder of Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner.
The key claim argued before the three-judge panel during a two-and-a-half-hour hearing last Thursday (May 17) in the packed Ceremonial Courtroom of the federal courthouse was whether the prosecutor at the 1982 trial, Joseph McGill, improperly removed potential qualified jurors because of race.
In 1995, the District Attorney's office admitted that McGill used 10 of 15 peremptory challenges requests to strike jurors from consideration, for which no reason has to be given to remove black jurors who otherwise met the requirements to be on the panel, including a willingness to vote for death. This means that, of 14 possible qualified African-American jurors, McGill eliminated 10. That compares to only five white jurors that he peremptorily dismissed out of a possible 25. And it left Abu-Jamal's jury with nine whites and three blacks in a city that was 44 percent black (the gap widened when a black juror was removed by the judge and replaced by a white alternate, with the enthusiastic endorsement of McGill).
On its face, that would seem to be prima facie evidence of racial discrimination that would normally warrant a hearing, but there is more: Over the course of six murder trials that he tried, McGill used his peremptory challenges to remove 74 percent of qualified black jurors, compared to only 25 percent of white jurors. Moreover, McGill's methods were part of a pattern prevailing during the two terms of McGill's boss, then D.A. Ed Rendell. Under Rendell, prosecutors barred 58 percent of all blacks via peremptory challenges, compared to just 22 percent of whites.
Abu-Jamal's lead attorney, Robert R. Bryan, cited these statistics and noted that during jury questioning, McGill asked different questions of blacks than whites, and used different standards in deciding whom to remove.
Rather than contest the statistics and other evidence of racial discrimination in jury selection, Hugh Burns the head of the DA's appeals unit, he argued the state's case against Abu-Jamal claimed that Abu-Jamal had no right to raise the issue in federal court. Burns alleged that Abu-Jamal had missed his chance to do so in 1995, during his Post-Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) hearing, or subsequent appeal to the state supreme court.
The problem with the DA's argument? Much evidence of race-based jury selection did not come to light until 1998, a year after Abu-Jamal's final appeal had been decided. Since Abu-Jamal couldn't have had that evidence until his state appeal was over, it was first presented in his federal habeas appeal in 1999.
A second line of appeal by Abu-Jamal, briefly discussed at last week's hearing, was a statement made by McGill during his summation on the last day of the trial; he told jurors that if they had doubts about the defendant's guilt, they needn't worry, because, "If you find the defendant guilty of course there would be appeal after appeal and perhaps there could be a reversal of the case, or whatever, so that may not be final." (Juries are supposed to reach a guilty verdict only if the case was proven "beyond a reasonable doubt.") This was no slip by McGill, who used identical language in another case, which is why the state Supreme Court, in 1986, overturned that defendant's death sentence.
Now, Abu-Jamal is asking the appeals court to overturn his conviction on the same grounds. He seemed to have won some support from at least one judge, Robert Cowen.
When prosecutor Burns argued that McGill's statement could justify only overturning a sentence, not conviction, Cowen asked, "But isn't what the prosecutor said a denial of [the defendant's] right to a fair trial?"
There were many problems with Abu-Jamal's trial, his lawyers and supporters maintain. He was provided with almost no funds for ballistics or forensic experts. Records of interrogations show that prosecution witnesses were pressured by police over the course of six months to alter their testimony to comport with the prosecution's crime scenario. For example, white taxi driver Robert Chobert, who originally told police the shooter had fled the scene, later graphically described seeing Abu-Jamal do the shooting, execution-style. Chobert was uniquely vulnerable to pressure from prosecutors he had been driving on a license that had been suspended for a DWI conviction, and was also on five-years' probation for felony arson in the fire-bombing of an elementary school for money. Neither this information nor the fact that he had asked the DA to help him "fix" his license was allowed to go to the jury.
The point is that when people develop opinions about this controversial case, particularly in Philadelphia, they tend to base them on the fact of Abu-Jamal's conviction, and then, working on the assumption that the jury accepted the facts as presented at trial to be true, go on to proclaim him guilty of Faulkner's murder.
What if the conviction itself, however, was the result of a pre-selection of jurors inclined to believe the prosecutor, think Judge Albert Sabo was fair and believe police officers and prosecution witnesses? And if, moreover, those jurors were allowed to be assured by the prosecutor that the standard for conviction needn't be "proof beyond a reasonable doubt," then what certainty is there about any of the "facts" presented at the trial, or about the verdict?
This is why the appeal now being considered by the three judges of the 3rd Circuit Chief Judge Anthony Scirica, Judge Cowen and Judge Thomas Ambro is critical. If justice and the hallowed constitutional right to a fair trial are to have any real meaning in the United States, it is essential that juries be chosen in a manner that is fair, not stacked, and it is essential that if the resulting jury convicts especially in a capital case it be on the basis of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."
As the arguments presented at the 3rd Circuit hearing made clear, there are solid reasons to doubt that either of those things happened in Abu-Jamal's case. Philadelphians need to be prepared to accept that if at least two judges on the appeals court panel reach that conclusion, there will be no way to convincingly argue that Abu-Jamal "did it," until the evidence is presented fairly at a new trial.
(editorial@citypaper.net)
Dave Lindorff, a Philadelphia-area investigative journalist and columnist, is author of Killing Time: An Investigation into the Death Penalty Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal (Common Courage Press, 2004).
Solidarity for Mumia in 6 U.S. cities, 8 countries
Published May 24, 2007 12:14 AM
In at least five U.S. cities outside Philadelphia and at least eight other countries demonstrations in solidarity with Mumia Abu-Jamal took place aimed at bringing attention to the latest court hearing May 17 and winning the political prisoner a new trial on the way toward freeing him.
In Ankara, Turkey’s capital and Istanbul, its biggest city, activists protested against the United States for imprisoning Mumia unfairly for 25 years. The group included academics, journalists, human rights activists and also correspondents of the daily Evrensel in front of the U.S. Embassy in Ankara and the Central Post office in Istanbul. They delivered a petition to the U.S. Embassy demanding a fair trial for Mumia Abu-Jamal.
The Cleveland Lucasville Five Defense Committee demonstrated during rush hour downtown. Signs called for the freedom of Abu-Jamal and the Lucasville Five, innocent men who face execution in Ohio in relation to the 1993 Lucasville prison uprising, and demanded “Justice for Aaron Steele.” Steele, a 23-year old African-American bus mechanic, died May 8 after being shot multiple times by Cleveland police. Passersby grabbed hundreds of newsletters on Mumia’s case. Other Mumia supporters had held a protest during the morning rush hour.
Members of the San Diego International Action Center and the San Diego Mumia Coalition gathered at a busy community intersection and distributed newsletters and other material on Mumia’s case to workers on their way home from work in the evening commute. Several motorists pulled over to get more details on Mumia’s struggle. Poet Jim Moreno read his Ode to Mumia for the assembled activists.
Organized in only one week, a broad-base of labor and community activists joined to support a May 17 press conference and protest in Milwaukee demanding a new trial for political prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal.
Speakers from Africans on the Move, AFSCME Local 82, Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), International Action Center-Milwaukee, the National Lawyers Guild, Pan African Revolutionary Socialist Party, Peace Action-Wisconsin and the Wisconsin Green Party spoke in downtown Milwaukee at the Henry Reuss Federal Plaza.
Prior to the May 17 action IAC-Milwaukee organizer Bryan G. Pfeifer was invited to speak about the struggle surrounding Mumia Abu-Jamal’s case on “The Eric Von” show hosted by African American- radio journalist Eric Von and “The Word Warriors Report,” hosted by African- American City Councilman Michael McGee Jr.
In Houston, in the execution capital of the country, where 16 executions are scheduled over the summer, anti-death penalty activists were fired up by the strong turnouts at two demonstrations. Outside the criminal courthouse, notorious for sending Shaka Sankofa, Frances Newton and Joseph Nichols to the execution chambers, demonstrators faced down a phalanx of cops in riot gear, mounted police and undercover cops everywhere that outnumbered the protesters 10-1. “Maybe they thought Mumia was joining us,” said one of the organizers.
In the afternoon from 4-6 p.m. there was another militant demonstration and rally, this one showing unity among young and older and Black, Latin@, Asian and white protesters from the Nation of Islam, the National Black United Front, the New Black Panther Party--whose youth distributed almost 600 of the Mumia newspapers--the Anarchist Black Cross, Code Pink, World Can’t Wait, gay activist/leader Ray Hill, the Revolutionary Communist Party, Zapatista supporters who just returned from meeting Zapatistas with La Otra Campana across the border, the director of S.H.A.P.E. Center where the Movement to Abolish the Death Penalty is based, the leader of the Venezuela Solidarity Committee and others as every group took the microphone.
In San Francisco over 300 people rallied in front of the federal building to demand that Mumia Abu-Jamal be set free, in an action sponsored by the locally-based Mobilization to Free Mumia Abu-Jamal. A broad coalition of students, union members, community activists and prisoner advocates spoke out, including Rudy Corpuz, Jr. and other members of United Playaz, who linked the fight to free Mumia with the everyday reality of repression and racism in the Black and Brown communities of the Bay Area.
Kiilu Nyasha, a local activist and former Black Panther Party member, delivered a solidarity statement to the crowd on behalf of the San Francisco 8 who are former BPP members and community activists who were arrested this spring and charged with the 1971 killing of a San Francisco policeman. Cristina Gutierrez of Barrio Unido called upon the crowd to unite to “change this system. His freedom is our freedom. His life is our life.” Judy Greenspan spoke at the rally representing Workers World Party. Other speakers demanded a new trial and freedom for Mumia.
Native political prisoner Leonard Peltier’s statement to Mumia was read from the podium in Milwaukee, Houston and other cities.
Cihan Celik in Istanbul, Susan Danann, Bob McCubbin, Bryan G. Pfeifer, Gloria Rubac and Judy Greenspan contributed to this article.
In at least five U.S. cities outside Philadelphia and at least eight other countries demonstrations in solidarity with Mumia Abu-Jamal took place aimed at bringing attention to the latest court hearing May 17 and winning the political prisoner a new trial on the way toward freeing him.
In Ankara, Turkey’s capital and Istanbul, its biggest city, activists protested against the United States for imprisoning Mumia unfairly for 25 years. The group included academics, journalists, human rights activists and also correspondents of the daily Evrensel in front of the U.S. Embassy in Ankara and the Central Post office in Istanbul. They delivered a petition to the U.S. Embassy demanding a fair trial for Mumia Abu-Jamal.
The Cleveland Lucasville Five Defense Committee demonstrated during rush hour downtown. Signs called for the freedom of Abu-Jamal and the Lucasville Five, innocent men who face execution in Ohio in relation to the 1993 Lucasville prison uprising, and demanded “Justice for Aaron Steele.” Steele, a 23-year old African-American bus mechanic, died May 8 after being shot multiple times by Cleveland police. Passersby grabbed hundreds of newsletters on Mumia’s case. Other Mumia supporters had held a protest during the morning rush hour.
Members of the San Diego International Action Center and the San Diego Mumia Coalition gathered at a busy community intersection and distributed newsletters and other material on Mumia’s case to workers on their way home from work in the evening commute. Several motorists pulled over to get more details on Mumia’s struggle. Poet Jim Moreno read his Ode to Mumia for the assembled activists.
Organized in only one week, a broad-base of labor and community activists joined to support a May 17 press conference and protest in Milwaukee demanding a new trial for political prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal.
Speakers from Africans on the Move, AFSCME Local 82, Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), International Action Center-Milwaukee, the National Lawyers Guild, Pan African Revolutionary Socialist Party, Peace Action-Wisconsin and the Wisconsin Green Party spoke in downtown Milwaukee at the Henry Reuss Federal Plaza.
Prior to the May 17 action IAC-Milwaukee organizer Bryan G. Pfeifer was invited to speak about the struggle surrounding Mumia Abu-Jamal’s case on “The Eric Von” show hosted by African American- radio journalist Eric Von and “The Word Warriors Report,” hosted by African- American City Councilman Michael McGee Jr.
In Houston, in the execution capital of the country, where 16 executions are scheduled over the summer, anti-death penalty activists were fired up by the strong turnouts at two demonstrations. Outside the criminal courthouse, notorious for sending Shaka Sankofa, Frances Newton and Joseph Nichols to the execution chambers, demonstrators faced down a phalanx of cops in riot gear, mounted police and undercover cops everywhere that outnumbered the protesters 10-1. “Maybe they thought Mumia was joining us,” said one of the organizers.
In the afternoon from 4-6 p.m. there was another militant demonstration and rally, this one showing unity among young and older and Black, Latin@, Asian and white protesters from the Nation of Islam, the National Black United Front, the New Black Panther Party--whose youth distributed almost 600 of the Mumia newspapers--the Anarchist Black Cross, Code Pink, World Can’t Wait, gay activist/leader Ray Hill, the Revolutionary Communist Party, Zapatista supporters who just returned from meeting Zapatistas with La Otra Campana across the border, the director of S.H.A.P.E. Center where the Movement to Abolish the Death Penalty is based, the leader of the Venezuela Solidarity Committee and others as every group took the microphone.
In San Francisco over 300 people rallied in front of the federal building to demand that Mumia Abu-Jamal be set free, in an action sponsored by the locally-based Mobilization to Free Mumia Abu-Jamal. A broad coalition of students, union members, community activists and prisoner advocates spoke out, including Rudy Corpuz, Jr. and other members of United Playaz, who linked the fight to free Mumia with the everyday reality of repression and racism in the Black and Brown communities of the Bay Area.
Kiilu Nyasha, a local activist and former Black Panther Party member, delivered a solidarity statement to the crowd on behalf of the San Francisco 8 who are former BPP members and community activists who were arrested this spring and charged with the 1971 killing of a San Francisco policeman. Cristina Gutierrez of Barrio Unido called upon the crowd to unite to “change this system. His freedom is our freedom. His life is our life.” Judy Greenspan spoke at the rally representing Workers World Party. Other speakers demanded a new trial and freedom for Mumia.
Native political prisoner Leonard Peltier’s statement to Mumia was read from the podium in Milwaukee, Houston and other cities.
Cihan Celik in Istanbul, Susan Danann, Bob McCubbin, Bryan G. Pfeifer, Gloria Rubac and Judy Greenspan contributed to this article.
Immortal Technique Explains The Significance Of Mumia Abu Jamal
May 18th, 2007 | Author: Andreas Hale
(Author's note: I would like to personally thank Immortal Technique for taking the time between recording his upcoming album and constantly being an active part of this and the many struggles around the world to write this piece on Mumia Abu Jamal. Hopefully it will shed some light on a case that is getting little press in the media.)
For the past few years I have been working to support the efforts of the Free Mumia organizations that cover this country. Whether they be in NYC, Philly or on the West Coast. Recently I did a show on the 16th to raise awareness for the March and rally to support the presentation of oral arguments that will bring him either a new trial or the death penalty. This case has been mired, I dare say imbued, in corruption of the Philadelphia Police Dept. and the so called Justice Dept.
After the sheer amount of Racism, witness intimidation and ballistics evidence there is no other explanation for the detaining of Mumia in prison when he is not a danger to his community. But rather Mumia Abu-Jamal has spent his entire life defending that community. I had originally planned to be there on May 17th but due to my arrival back in NYC to return the borrowed car at 6AM and a meeting with some people who just flew into the country about funding an orphanage in Afghanistan, that was made impossible. But this doesn't stop my heart from going out to my brother Mumia Abu-Jamal and my support from being channeled in order to make sure that we do not allow this case to just slip into the memories of Americans forever.
I would like to thank the hundreds of people who showed up (Wednesday) to put forth their support financially and spiritually for our brother. The turnout was incredible and it showed the city of Philadelphia's solidarity with this cause.
As a journalist, his reporting shed light on so many things going on in the ghetto. It is my firm belief that his voice became so apparent as one of dissent to corporate controlled media, that when the opportunity arose it can be seen the way that government manipulated the case. In 1981 when he was charged with the murder of Daniel Faulkner, the evidence was tainted, and sometimes altogether disappeared, he was refused the right to defend himself and his request to have John Africa from the MOVE organization was denied as well.
The Philadelphia Police also punished his supporters brutally to the extent of a full scale military style raid on their home. It became a notorious mark of how police brutality and the governments blind eye to a racist double standard of treatment had not been corrected by mere legislation. Helicopters were even used to drop a sizable bomb of military grade C4 explosives on the home of the MOVE organization killing 11 people including 5 children. During the course of assaulting the house on 6221 Osage Ave. they used Shotguns, Uzi's, browning automatics, tear gas, water hoses, M-16's, M60's and a .50 caliber machine gun to fire almost 10,000 rounds into the house. The explosion of C4 and the gunfire set an entire city block a blaze, which the police allowed to burn, eventually consuming over 50 other homes.
The 1985 bombing of the MOVE home and murder of all these people has never been justified by the Justice Dept. They have scrambled for reasoning and the puppet mayor at the time who himself was a black man (Wilson Goode) made it clear to anyone that studies that power structure of politics that it doesn't matter what the figure head or the representative is, he doesn't dictate the policy of the establishment. Rather, he is there to present an example of what we need to assimilate to in terms of subservience in order to be allowed to remain in power.
Really though, the problems between the MOVE organization attempting to gain the economic control of their own neighborhood and the police locking the city down had started years before. In 1975, because of MOVE's pro black stance on equality, they became a full fledged target and the harassment became a part of life for them. And in 1976 they became the victims of viciously provoked attacks over a disturbing the peace complaint that wouldn't have been able to merit a ticket nowadays.The result was a violent beating given to MOVE supporters on the street who questioned the polices actions and an attack on two women one of whom, Janine Africa,was assaulted by police, thrown to the floor and stomped with her 3 week old baby in her arms resulting the death of her child, Life Africa.
In 1978 a raid on the MOVE headquarters ended violently with 9 people jailed for 30-100 years for the alleged shooting of police officer James Ramp. Sketchy evidence and numerous inconsistencies were abound but led to Judge Edwin Malmed's sentencing the 9 MOVE members regardless. Some have even said that Malmed was the catalyst for the police attack. When asked by Mumia after the trial "Who shot James Ramp?" Judge Edwin Malmed replied that he "didn't have the faintest idea" and stated that since the members of MOVE wanted to be tried together he sentenced them together. Even conservative white republicans in the area listening to the local talk radio show were disturbed by this response which unabashedly divulged the frivolous legality of what the court system was passing off as justice. It is this type of investigative reporting as I stated earlier that brought him to attention of authorities.
The story of Mumia was not a winding confusing series of events that no one has any remembrance of there are several witnesses to these atrocities. Those who insist on Mumia's guilt would do themselves a disservice by not asking of themselves that the reworking of evidence, attacking of witnesses and not granting someone a fair trial is not only a disservice to Mumia but also a disservice to the memory of the other person whose life was taken from them on that day, Daniel Faulkner.
The police have a brotherhood. A brotherhood they are rarely ever seen to betray. A code of silence where they do not testify against other officers. They believe anyone guilty of the murder of an officer should receive the death penalty- no questions asked. But a question comes to mind, if Mumia is not guilty and his coverage of the police raid of the home in 1978 already left him as a person of interest for the government, why was he under FBI surveillance since he was 14 years old? Ask yourself, is he on trial for what he allegedly did the night of December 9th because he is the person who would fit the description of who they would want to be responsible- a strong, articulate, self educated African man who would not deny his culture or watch his family and friends abused by a notoriously racist police dept? Is he the person who fits the description of what you need guilt to be in order to justify the way you see the world.
I ask this to those that would view this with skepticism because that skepticism created by the right wing to counterbalance reason does Daniel Faulkner a disservice as well as Mumia. It leaves his killer at large and destroys what's left of the credibility of the justice system. The harder they squeeze the more reality slips through their fingers and when it is all said and done, what is the legacy of this trial. Justice? Retribution? None of the above, it is simply the fact that for the past 26 years an innocent man has been behind bars and slowly but surely media outlets like our own BET have been pressured to maintain their distance from him. Black and Latino politicians have been pressured to stop bringing him up. The Murder of an officer is a serious crime, and so anyone that would add doubt to the government's version of the events is attacked by the right and abandoned by the left. An interesting transition of events that seems to repeat itself with other things and is why the Democratic party is so weak. But the management of this trial and the way that this government has run its police dept. leaves no question that they wouldn't go through all the trouble if they weren't hiding something.
* Footnote: Mumia was not a violent man, he was not a sadist like officer Geist who carried out the first assault on the MOVE home in 1978, and whose own wife shot him to death after years of merciless abuse. This occurred after the trial over the raid of the MOVE home in 1978 and was kept out of the court because officer Geist's wife was pressured not to speak on it by police.
No one asks to be a Revolutionary Martyr, no one asks to be Nelson Mandela, Mumia, Shaka Sankofa, or Hurricane Carter. Mumia Abu Jamal didn't leave his house that morning thinking "I'm going to spend the next quarter of a century in prison so that I may provide an example to the world of police corruption and injustice done in a land that professes to be the most advanced and civilized nation in the world." But when he left his house that day for work that's exactly what he became and unless you know your rights and unless you arm yourself intellectually and are able to understand the legal system and the changes that are occurring quietly but rapidly in our legal system asking questions can bring you the same fate.
Someone once told me that Pennsylvania was Philadelphia and Pittsburgh and Mississippi between them. I think having lived there and been incarcerated there, while I have not seen Mississippi and therefore cannot draw the comparison. But I will say there that it is a State of the Union in name only and still has pockets of confederate resistance all over the place. It's a state notorious for having a huge amount of hate groups. It is a place that we must take back before we even think of expanding anywhere else on the East.
Mumia represent a lot of things for different people, but to me he represents something very simple, not abandoning your brothers because of public pressure when you believe their cause to be true. When there were no WMD's found in Iraq that didn't stop the right wing. Dick Cheney claimed they were moved and there was a relationship between Al-Quaeda and Iraq. Sean Hannity, the man who is so far right he's approaching the justification for fascism in defense of democracy, claimed they were probably moved to Syria. But this is NOT the mirror image to their extreme dedication to a lie that has cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people in the course of seeking out their self fulfilling prophecy of catastrophe. This is the story of an incident that was covered up on December 9th in 1981 where two people lost their lives. And in the interest of seeking a quick and easy decision against someone whose believe in self determination and struggle made him a likely candidate all other possibilities were stripped from the systems mind. "Black Militants want to kill us," kept being repeated. "Maybe Mumia was jealous of Officer Daniel Faulkner's freedom," because of course freedom is why people carry out world wars and terrorist attacks. Or maybe he was just speaking for the voiceless and his punishment for doing so was to be incarcerated on charges for a crime he didn't commit.
While there are those that will forget him, others will change their stance and claim his guilt to feel like they belong to the majority. There are people who will continue to fight for his release and a new fair trial without the racism, corrupted evidence and moral ambiguity of the government's tactics in 1981 and subsequently after. Which, if you think about it, was only 11 years after America granted Black People the right to vote.
So vote today and everyday with your actions, not for a president, but for Justice that must be done around you, and for the struggle of Mumia who is not forgotten in Harlem NYC or around the world.
Peace & Respect,
Immortal
Technique
(Author's note: I would like to personally thank Immortal Technique for taking the time between recording his upcoming album and constantly being an active part of this and the many struggles around the world to write this piece on Mumia Abu Jamal. Hopefully it will shed some light on a case that is getting little press in the media.)
For the past few years I have been working to support the efforts of the Free Mumia organizations that cover this country. Whether they be in NYC, Philly or on the West Coast. Recently I did a show on the 16th to raise awareness for the March and rally to support the presentation of oral arguments that will bring him either a new trial or the death penalty. This case has been mired, I dare say imbued, in corruption of the Philadelphia Police Dept. and the so called Justice Dept.
After the sheer amount of Racism, witness intimidation and ballistics evidence there is no other explanation for the detaining of Mumia in prison when he is not a danger to his community. But rather Mumia Abu-Jamal has spent his entire life defending that community. I had originally planned to be there on May 17th but due to my arrival back in NYC to return the borrowed car at 6AM and a meeting with some people who just flew into the country about funding an orphanage in Afghanistan, that was made impossible. But this doesn't stop my heart from going out to my brother Mumia Abu-Jamal and my support from being channeled in order to make sure that we do not allow this case to just slip into the memories of Americans forever.
I would like to thank the hundreds of people who showed up (Wednesday) to put forth their support financially and spiritually for our brother. The turnout was incredible and it showed the city of Philadelphia's solidarity with this cause.
As a journalist, his reporting shed light on so many things going on in the ghetto. It is my firm belief that his voice became so apparent as one of dissent to corporate controlled media, that when the opportunity arose it can be seen the way that government manipulated the case. In 1981 when he was charged with the murder of Daniel Faulkner, the evidence was tainted, and sometimes altogether disappeared, he was refused the right to defend himself and his request to have John Africa from the MOVE organization was denied as well.
The Philadelphia Police also punished his supporters brutally to the extent of a full scale military style raid on their home. It became a notorious mark of how police brutality and the governments blind eye to a racist double standard of treatment had not been corrected by mere legislation. Helicopters were even used to drop a sizable bomb of military grade C4 explosives on the home of the MOVE organization killing 11 people including 5 children. During the course of assaulting the house on 6221 Osage Ave. they used Shotguns, Uzi's, browning automatics, tear gas, water hoses, M-16's, M60's and a .50 caliber machine gun to fire almost 10,000 rounds into the house. The explosion of C4 and the gunfire set an entire city block a blaze, which the police allowed to burn, eventually consuming over 50 other homes.
The 1985 bombing of the MOVE home and murder of all these people has never been justified by the Justice Dept. They have scrambled for reasoning and the puppet mayor at the time who himself was a black man (Wilson Goode) made it clear to anyone that studies that power structure of politics that it doesn't matter what the figure head or the representative is, he doesn't dictate the policy of the establishment. Rather, he is there to present an example of what we need to assimilate to in terms of subservience in order to be allowed to remain in power.
Really though, the problems between the MOVE organization attempting to gain the economic control of their own neighborhood and the police locking the city down had started years before. In 1975, because of MOVE's pro black stance on equality, they became a full fledged target and the harassment became a part of life for them. And in 1976 they became the victims of viciously provoked attacks over a disturbing the peace complaint that wouldn't have been able to merit a ticket nowadays.The result was a violent beating given to MOVE supporters on the street who questioned the polices actions and an attack on two women one of whom, Janine Africa,was assaulted by police, thrown to the floor and stomped with her 3 week old baby in her arms resulting the death of her child, Life Africa.
In 1978 a raid on the MOVE headquarters ended violently with 9 people jailed for 30-100 years for the alleged shooting of police officer James Ramp. Sketchy evidence and numerous inconsistencies were abound but led to Judge Edwin Malmed's sentencing the 9 MOVE members regardless. Some have even said that Malmed was the catalyst for the police attack. When asked by Mumia after the trial "Who shot James Ramp?" Judge Edwin Malmed replied that he "didn't have the faintest idea" and stated that since the members of MOVE wanted to be tried together he sentenced them together. Even conservative white republicans in the area listening to the local talk radio show were disturbed by this response which unabashedly divulged the frivolous legality of what the court system was passing off as justice. It is this type of investigative reporting as I stated earlier that brought him to attention of authorities.
The story of Mumia was not a winding confusing series of events that no one has any remembrance of there are several witnesses to these atrocities. Those who insist on Mumia's guilt would do themselves a disservice by not asking of themselves that the reworking of evidence, attacking of witnesses and not granting someone a fair trial is not only a disservice to Mumia but also a disservice to the memory of the other person whose life was taken from them on that day, Daniel Faulkner.
The police have a brotherhood. A brotherhood they are rarely ever seen to betray. A code of silence where they do not testify against other officers. They believe anyone guilty of the murder of an officer should receive the death penalty- no questions asked. But a question comes to mind, if Mumia is not guilty and his coverage of the police raid of the home in 1978 already left him as a person of interest for the government, why was he under FBI surveillance since he was 14 years old? Ask yourself, is he on trial for what he allegedly did the night of December 9th because he is the person who would fit the description of who they would want to be responsible- a strong, articulate, self educated African man who would not deny his culture or watch his family and friends abused by a notoriously racist police dept? Is he the person who fits the description of what you need guilt to be in order to justify the way you see the world.
I ask this to those that would view this with skepticism because that skepticism created by the right wing to counterbalance reason does Daniel Faulkner a disservice as well as Mumia. It leaves his killer at large and destroys what's left of the credibility of the justice system. The harder they squeeze the more reality slips through their fingers and when it is all said and done, what is the legacy of this trial. Justice? Retribution? None of the above, it is simply the fact that for the past 26 years an innocent man has been behind bars and slowly but surely media outlets like our own BET have been pressured to maintain their distance from him. Black and Latino politicians have been pressured to stop bringing him up. The Murder of an officer is a serious crime, and so anyone that would add doubt to the government's version of the events is attacked by the right and abandoned by the left. An interesting transition of events that seems to repeat itself with other things and is why the Democratic party is so weak. But the management of this trial and the way that this government has run its police dept. leaves no question that they wouldn't go through all the trouble if they weren't hiding something.
* Footnote: Mumia was not a violent man, he was not a sadist like officer Geist who carried out the first assault on the MOVE home in 1978, and whose own wife shot him to death after years of merciless abuse. This occurred after the trial over the raid of the MOVE home in 1978 and was kept out of the court because officer Geist's wife was pressured not to speak on it by police.
No one asks to be a Revolutionary Martyr, no one asks to be Nelson Mandela, Mumia, Shaka Sankofa, or Hurricane Carter. Mumia Abu Jamal didn't leave his house that morning thinking "I'm going to spend the next quarter of a century in prison so that I may provide an example to the world of police corruption and injustice done in a land that professes to be the most advanced and civilized nation in the world." But when he left his house that day for work that's exactly what he became and unless you know your rights and unless you arm yourself intellectually and are able to understand the legal system and the changes that are occurring quietly but rapidly in our legal system asking questions can bring you the same fate.
Someone once told me that Pennsylvania was Philadelphia and Pittsburgh and Mississippi between them. I think having lived there and been incarcerated there, while I have not seen Mississippi and therefore cannot draw the comparison. But I will say there that it is a State of the Union in name only and still has pockets of confederate resistance all over the place. It's a state notorious for having a huge amount of hate groups. It is a place that we must take back before we even think of expanding anywhere else on the East.
Mumia represent a lot of things for different people, but to me he represents something very simple, not abandoning your brothers because of public pressure when you believe their cause to be true. When there were no WMD's found in Iraq that didn't stop the right wing. Dick Cheney claimed they were moved and there was a relationship between Al-Quaeda and Iraq. Sean Hannity, the man who is so far right he's approaching the justification for fascism in defense of democracy, claimed they were probably moved to Syria. But this is NOT the mirror image to their extreme dedication to a lie that has cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people in the course of seeking out their self fulfilling prophecy of catastrophe. This is the story of an incident that was covered up on December 9th in 1981 where two people lost their lives. And in the interest of seeking a quick and easy decision against someone whose believe in self determination and struggle made him a likely candidate all other possibilities were stripped from the systems mind. "Black Militants want to kill us," kept being repeated. "Maybe Mumia was jealous of Officer Daniel Faulkner's freedom," because of course freedom is why people carry out world wars and terrorist attacks. Or maybe he was just speaking for the voiceless and his punishment for doing so was to be incarcerated on charges for a crime he didn't commit.
While there are those that will forget him, others will change their stance and claim his guilt to feel like they belong to the majority. There are people who will continue to fight for his release and a new fair trial without the racism, corrupted evidence and moral ambiguity of the government's tactics in 1981 and subsequently after. Which, if you think about it, was only 11 years after America granted Black People the right to vote.
So vote today and everyday with your actions, not for a president, but for Justice that must be done around you, and for the struggle of Mumia who is not forgotten in Harlem NYC or around the world.
Peace & Respect,
Immortal
Technique
Mumia Case on Hold as Appellate Judges Deliberate
Mumia Case on Hold as Appellate Judges Deliberate
by Dave Lindorff
http://www.opednews.com
Momentous decisions are ahead in the 25-year-long case of Philadelphia death row prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal, following a hearing before a three-judge panel of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia Thursday.
Burns, who has been the lead attorney for the Philadelphia DA on this case since at least 1995, and who heads the appeals unit, went up against San Francisco death penalty appellate attorney Robert R. Bryan, who assumed the role of lead attorney for Abu-Jamal in 2003.
Abu-Jamal, who was not present at the packed hearing in the ceremonial courtroom of the Federal Courthouse across from the Liberty Bell museum in Philadelphia, had three claims before the Appellate Court, all challenging his conviction for the 1981 murder of Philadelphia Police Officer Daniel Faulkner. Judith Ritter, Abu-Jamal's local counsel, argued argued against a claim by the District Attorney to overturn a 2001 decision by a lower federal court which threw out his death sentence. Christina Swarns, a counsel with the NAACP Legal defense Fund, argued in support of Abu-Jamal's appeal as a "friend of the court."
The two-and-a-half-hour hearing began with prosecutor Burns tryng to make the case that Federal District Judge William Yohn had erred in vacating Abu-Jamal's death sentence. Judge Yohn had ruled in 2001 that an ambiguous and poorly worded jury verdict form, and an even more ambiguous instruction from the judge in the case, Albert Sabo, had left jurors believing, wrongly, that they had to all agree on any mitigating circumstances before weighing them in their decision as to the death penalty. In fact, any one juror can find a mitigating circumstance, while a death penalty decision must be unanimous. Burns claimed that Yohn's basis for his ruling was flawed. But all three of the judges—Chief Judge Anthony Scirica and Judge Robert Cowen, both Reagan appointees, and Thomas Ambro, a Clinton appointee—seemed to take a dim view of Burns' arguments. Judging from their challenging questions to Burns, and their generally favorable questions to Abu-Jamal's attorneys, it seemed likely that they would, in the end, uphold Yohn's decision.
If they do, Abu-Jamal's death sentence would be lifted once and for all. At that point, the DA would have 180 days to decide whether to seek a retrial on just his sentence (not guilt). Several years ago, in an interview with this reporter, Joseph McGill, the original prosecutor at Abu-Jamal's trial, said the DA's office had apparently not decided whether it would seek a retrial on the death penalty if Yohn was upheld on appeal, as this would require impaneling a new jury, and essentially retrying the case, since a new jury would not know the issues leading to conviction. The DA has to realize that a death sentence would be much harder to win in today's Philadelphia, where it would be much harder for the prosecution to obtain a jury of 10 whites and two blacks, as it managed to do for the trial in 1982. Also, in 1982, Jamal had an attorney who had never handled a death penalty case before, and he didn't even attempt to bring in witnesses to offer mitigating evidence against a death sentence.
A definitive end to Abu-Jamal's death sentence, even if his conviction remained in place or on appeal, would mean a major change in his status. For one thing, the DA's office would no longer be able, as it has done since 2001, be able to pressure the courts into keeping him locked away in solitary confinement on the state's super-max death row outside Pittsburgh.
On the conviction issues, the court and Abu-Jamal's attorneys focused on a claim that his jury had been unconstitutionally purged of African Americans by a prosecutor who had a history of removing blacks from capital juries—a so-called Batson claim (after the US Supreme Court decision in 1986). The main presentation of the case by attorney Bryan was hampered by frequent questions from the judges, who kept asking for more evidence than just the undisputed fact that prosecutor McGill had used peremptory challenges to remove 10 otherwise qualified black jurors from the jury, compared with only five whites. Bryan pointed out that McGill had made his concern about black jurors clear when, during the trial, he raised an alarm that a black judge had entered the courtroom and sat near Abu-Jamal's supporters in the spectators' gallery. Reading from the court transcript, Bryan noted that McGill had said, "If the court pleases, the two black jurors may know him." (Of course, as Abu-Jamal's then attorney Anthony Jackson noted, there was an equal chance any of the white jurors might have known the judge, but McGill didn't seem to care about them.) In his written brief to the court, Bryan also notes that McGill, over the course of six capital trials including Abu-Jamal's, used peremptory challenges to strike 74 percent of qualified black jurors, compared to only 25 percent of white jurors. That brief also notes that over Ed Rendell's two terms as Philadelphia district attorney, when the man who is now Pennsylvania's governor was McGill's boss, the DA's office struck black jurors in capital cases 58 percent of the time, compared to only 22 percent of the time for whites. (Indeed, in 1982, and until the high court's Batson ruling in 1986, the Philadelphia DA actually followed a state supreme court decision called Henderson, which ruled that it was permissible for prosecutors to strike blacks from a jury if they thought they might tend to favor a defendant of the same race.)
DA prosecutor Burns, for his part, focused on an argument that Abu-Jamal's jury bias claim had been forfeited on procedural grounds because he allegedly had not made it soon enough—either during his trial or in the early stages of his state court appeal. This argument was weakened by the fact that the Supreme Court only made race-based jury selection clearly illegal in 1986, well after Abu-Jamal's trial, and by the fact that documentary scientific evidence of the Philadelphia prosecutor's systematic rejection of black jurors did not come to light until after 1997, after Abu-Jamal's state appeal had been exhausted.
At least one judge, Ambro, seemed clearly sympathetic with Abu-Jamal's Batson claim. The other two judges were harder to read, as they asked tough questions of both Bryan and Burns. One judge, Cowen, on several occasions suggested the improbable possibility that since nobody knew the racial mix of the Abu-Jamal jury pool, it "might have been" majority African-American, "in which case the prosecutor's peremptory challenges might be seen as having been biased against whites." This view is clearly preposterous in a city where the court system had been--and to some extent still is--struggling to obtain an appropriate representation of African Americans on juries. Indeed, back in 1982, the city was still using only voter registration lists to call people to jury duty, and blacks at that time, while constituting 40 percent of the city's population, were notoriously under-represented on the voter rolls. Years later, following a federal lawsuit, the city has changed its method for compiling jury pools, but a lawyer long familiary with the issue says it would have been "almost inconceivable" for there to have been a majority black jury pool in 1982 under the old system.
If at least two of the three judges on the Third Circuit panel were to find prima facie evidence of a Batson violation in Abu-Jamal's trial, they would likely send the case back to the Federal District Court, where Judge Yohn would be ordered to hold a full evidentiary hearing on the issue. In general, courts have held that the threshold for proving a prima facie case of a Batson violation--and thus winning an evidentiary hearing--is fairly low, while proving an actual case of bias--and winning a new trial--can be much harder.
The second appeal claim by Abu-Jamal--that his trial had been unconstitutionally tainted by a summation statement to the jury by prosecutor McGill in which he told jurors their guilty verdict would "not be final" because Abu-Jamal would have "appeal after appeal," was given relatively short shrift at the hearing, because of the time spent on the Batson issue. Nonetheless it won support from a surprising quarter.
Prosecutor Burns argued to the court that they should not even be considering the issue, since the US Supreme Court has never ruled that such clearly improper language by a prosecutor should undo a conviction--only a death sentence. But Judge Cowen, looking incredulous, asked Burns, "Isn't saying that undermining a defendant's right to a fair trial?"
If Cowen took that question seriously--and feels that telling jurors that their judgment isn't really final, could undermine the concept of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"—then he could be considering overturning the guilty verdict. If a second judge went along with his view, that would mean a new trial for Abu-Jamal--except for the fact that the DA would certainly appeal such a decision to the US Supreme Court, (which would be bound to consider it, because of such a ruling's far-reaching implications).
There was no discussion of Abu-Jamal's third claim, which was that his post-conviction hearing had been constitutionally flawed because of a pro-prosecution bias on the part of Judge Albert Sabo, the same judge who had presided over his trial. The fact that there was no argument on this claim by either side doesn't matter much, since both sides have filed detail briefs with the court, as they also did on the other claims. Apparently, the three judges had no major questions for either side regarding their respective arguments.
There is no specific timetable for the court to decide on the four claims before it, though some attorneys predict a decision can probably be expected in one or two months.
Outside the courtroom, in the plaza in front of the courthouse, and along 6th Street, several hundred pro-Abu-Jamal demonstrators, many carrying "Free Mumia" signs, staged a spirited demonstration. Inside the courtroom, Abu-Jamal supporters filled most of the seats reserved for spectators. Near the front sat Officer Faulkner's widow, Maureen, and several family members and supporters, who were allowed to enter the courtroom via a private entrance while other spectators had to go through security gates and line up at the courthouse's main entrance.
Prosecutor McGill was also in attendance.
by Dave Lindorff
http://www.opednews.com
Momentous decisions are ahead in the 25-year-long case of Philadelphia death row prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal, following a hearing before a three-judge panel of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia Thursday.
Burns, who has been the lead attorney for the Philadelphia DA on this case since at least 1995, and who heads the appeals unit, went up against San Francisco death penalty appellate attorney Robert R. Bryan, who assumed the role of lead attorney for Abu-Jamal in 2003.
Abu-Jamal, who was not present at the packed hearing in the ceremonial courtroom of the Federal Courthouse across from the Liberty Bell museum in Philadelphia, had three claims before the Appellate Court, all challenging his conviction for the 1981 murder of Philadelphia Police Officer Daniel Faulkner. Judith Ritter, Abu-Jamal's local counsel, argued argued against a claim by the District Attorney to overturn a 2001 decision by a lower federal court which threw out his death sentence. Christina Swarns, a counsel with the NAACP Legal defense Fund, argued in support of Abu-Jamal's appeal as a "friend of the court."
The two-and-a-half-hour hearing began with prosecutor Burns tryng to make the case that Federal District Judge William Yohn had erred in vacating Abu-Jamal's death sentence. Judge Yohn had ruled in 2001 that an ambiguous and poorly worded jury verdict form, and an even more ambiguous instruction from the judge in the case, Albert Sabo, had left jurors believing, wrongly, that they had to all agree on any mitigating circumstances before weighing them in their decision as to the death penalty. In fact, any one juror can find a mitigating circumstance, while a death penalty decision must be unanimous. Burns claimed that Yohn's basis for his ruling was flawed. But all three of the judges—Chief Judge Anthony Scirica and Judge Robert Cowen, both Reagan appointees, and Thomas Ambro, a Clinton appointee—seemed to take a dim view of Burns' arguments. Judging from their challenging questions to Burns, and their generally favorable questions to Abu-Jamal's attorneys, it seemed likely that they would, in the end, uphold Yohn's decision.
If they do, Abu-Jamal's death sentence would be lifted once and for all. At that point, the DA would have 180 days to decide whether to seek a retrial on just his sentence (not guilt). Several years ago, in an interview with this reporter, Joseph McGill, the original prosecutor at Abu-Jamal's trial, said the DA's office had apparently not decided whether it would seek a retrial on the death penalty if Yohn was upheld on appeal, as this would require impaneling a new jury, and essentially retrying the case, since a new jury would not know the issues leading to conviction. The DA has to realize that a death sentence would be much harder to win in today's Philadelphia, where it would be much harder for the prosecution to obtain a jury of 10 whites and two blacks, as it managed to do for the trial in 1982. Also, in 1982, Jamal had an attorney who had never handled a death penalty case before, and he didn't even attempt to bring in witnesses to offer mitigating evidence against a death sentence.
A definitive end to Abu-Jamal's death sentence, even if his conviction remained in place or on appeal, would mean a major change in his status. For one thing, the DA's office would no longer be able, as it has done since 2001, be able to pressure the courts into keeping him locked away in solitary confinement on the state's super-max death row outside Pittsburgh.
On the conviction issues, the court and Abu-Jamal's attorneys focused on a claim that his jury had been unconstitutionally purged of African Americans by a prosecutor who had a history of removing blacks from capital juries—a so-called Batson claim (after the US Supreme Court decision in 1986). The main presentation of the case by attorney Bryan was hampered by frequent questions from the judges, who kept asking for more evidence than just the undisputed fact that prosecutor McGill had used peremptory challenges to remove 10 otherwise qualified black jurors from the jury, compared with only five whites. Bryan pointed out that McGill had made his concern about black jurors clear when, during the trial, he raised an alarm that a black judge had entered the courtroom and sat near Abu-Jamal's supporters in the spectators' gallery. Reading from the court transcript, Bryan noted that McGill had said, "If the court pleases, the two black jurors may know him." (Of course, as Abu-Jamal's then attorney Anthony Jackson noted, there was an equal chance any of the white jurors might have known the judge, but McGill didn't seem to care about them.) In his written brief to the court, Bryan also notes that McGill, over the course of six capital trials including Abu-Jamal's, used peremptory challenges to strike 74 percent of qualified black jurors, compared to only 25 percent of white jurors. That brief also notes that over Ed Rendell's two terms as Philadelphia district attorney, when the man who is now Pennsylvania's governor was McGill's boss, the DA's office struck black jurors in capital cases 58 percent of the time, compared to only 22 percent of the time for whites. (Indeed, in 1982, and until the high court's Batson ruling in 1986, the Philadelphia DA actually followed a state supreme court decision called Henderson, which ruled that it was permissible for prosecutors to strike blacks from a jury if they thought they might tend to favor a defendant of the same race.)
DA prosecutor Burns, for his part, focused on an argument that Abu-Jamal's jury bias claim had been forfeited on procedural grounds because he allegedly had not made it soon enough—either during his trial or in the early stages of his state court appeal. This argument was weakened by the fact that the Supreme Court only made race-based jury selection clearly illegal in 1986, well after Abu-Jamal's trial, and by the fact that documentary scientific evidence of the Philadelphia prosecutor's systematic rejection of black jurors did not come to light until after 1997, after Abu-Jamal's state appeal had been exhausted.
At least one judge, Ambro, seemed clearly sympathetic with Abu-Jamal's Batson claim. The other two judges were harder to read, as they asked tough questions of both Bryan and Burns. One judge, Cowen, on several occasions suggested the improbable possibility that since nobody knew the racial mix of the Abu-Jamal jury pool, it "might have been" majority African-American, "in which case the prosecutor's peremptory challenges might be seen as having been biased against whites." This view is clearly preposterous in a city where the court system had been--and to some extent still is--struggling to obtain an appropriate representation of African Americans on juries. Indeed, back in 1982, the city was still using only voter registration lists to call people to jury duty, and blacks at that time, while constituting 40 percent of the city's population, were notoriously under-represented on the voter rolls. Years later, following a federal lawsuit, the city has changed its method for compiling jury pools, but a lawyer long familiary with the issue says it would have been "almost inconceivable" for there to have been a majority black jury pool in 1982 under the old system.
If at least two of the three judges on the Third Circuit panel were to find prima facie evidence of a Batson violation in Abu-Jamal's trial, they would likely send the case back to the Federal District Court, where Judge Yohn would be ordered to hold a full evidentiary hearing on the issue. In general, courts have held that the threshold for proving a prima facie case of a Batson violation--and thus winning an evidentiary hearing--is fairly low, while proving an actual case of bias--and winning a new trial--can be much harder.
The second appeal claim by Abu-Jamal--that his trial had been unconstitutionally tainted by a summation statement to the jury by prosecutor McGill in which he told jurors their guilty verdict would "not be final" because Abu-Jamal would have "appeal after appeal," was given relatively short shrift at the hearing, because of the time spent on the Batson issue. Nonetheless it won support from a surprising quarter.
Prosecutor Burns argued to the court that they should not even be considering the issue, since the US Supreme Court has never ruled that such clearly improper language by a prosecutor should undo a conviction--only a death sentence. But Judge Cowen, looking incredulous, asked Burns, "Isn't saying that undermining a defendant's right to a fair trial?"
If Cowen took that question seriously--and feels that telling jurors that their judgment isn't really final, could undermine the concept of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"—then he could be considering overturning the guilty verdict. If a second judge went along with his view, that would mean a new trial for Abu-Jamal--except for the fact that the DA would certainly appeal such a decision to the US Supreme Court, (which would be bound to consider it, because of such a ruling's far-reaching implications).
There was no discussion of Abu-Jamal's third claim, which was that his post-conviction hearing had been constitutionally flawed because of a pro-prosecution bias on the part of Judge Albert Sabo, the same judge who had presided over his trial. The fact that there was no argument on this claim by either side doesn't matter much, since both sides have filed detail briefs with the court, as they also did on the other claims. Apparently, the three judges had no major questions for either side regarding their respective arguments.
There is no specific timetable for the court to decide on the four claims before it, though some attorneys predict a decision can probably be expected in one or two months.
Outside the courtroom, in the plaza in front of the courthouse, and along 6th Street, several hundred pro-Abu-Jamal demonstrators, many carrying "Free Mumia" signs, staged a spirited demonstration. Inside the courtroom, Abu-Jamal supporters filled most of the seats reserved for spectators. Near the front sat Officer Faulkner's widow, Maureen, and several family members and supporters, who were allowed to enter the courtroom via a private entrance while other spectators had to go through security gates and line up at the courthouse's main entrance.
Prosecutor McGill was also in attendance.
London Protests Call for Mumia's Freedom
Free Mumia Abu-Jamal! Abolish the racist death penalty! Mumia is innocent! were among the chants from a 100-strong crowd outside the US Embassy in Grosvenor Square.
Protests took place internationally on Thursday 17 May, the day Mumia's case was heard before three judges in the US Court of Appeals of the Third Circuit – just below the Supreme Court. A decision is expected within 90 days.
Greetings were read to the London rally from the International Concerned Family and Friends of Mumia Abu-Jamal in Philadelphia,along with a statement from William Singletary, a witness to the 9 December 1981 events, who asserts that Mumia did not arrive on the scene until several minutes after police officer Faulkner had been shot.
Contributions to an open mic were made by supporters of MOVE, Friends of Africa, the Partisan Defense Committee, the International Bolshevik Tendency, the Spartacist League, Legal Action for Women and individual Mumia activists. A collection for Mumia's legal defence raised £40.
Just before the protest began, Colourful Radio interviewed Mumia campaigner Michael W.
For more pictures of the demonstration see: http://www.freemumia.multiservers.com/
For the latest news from the court hearing, see this interview with Mumia's attorney Robert Bryan.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/18/1429203
Protests took place internationally on Thursday 17 May, the day Mumia's case was heard before three judges in the US Court of Appeals of the Third Circuit – just below the Supreme Court. A decision is expected within 90 days.
Greetings were read to the London rally from the International Concerned Family and Friends of Mumia Abu-Jamal in Philadelphia,along with a statement from William Singletary, a witness to the 9 December 1981 events, who asserts that Mumia did not arrive on the scene until several minutes after police officer Faulkner had been shot.
Contributions to an open mic were made by supporters of MOVE, Friends of Africa, the Partisan Defense Committee, the International Bolshevik Tendency, the Spartacist League, Legal Action for Women and individual Mumia activists. A collection for Mumia's legal defence raised £40.
Just before the protest began, Colourful Radio interviewed Mumia campaigner Michael W.
For more pictures of the demonstration see: http://www.freemumia.multiservers.com/
For the latest news from the court hearing, see this interview with Mumia's attorney Robert Bryan.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/18/1429203
Radio interviews at Mumia's court hearing
More audio from the actions around Mumia's court hearing, from Hans Bennett who spoke with a number of those present in the courtroom about their reflections on the procedure, including MOVE member Ramona Africa, scholar and activist Ward Churchill, German legislator Volker Ratzmann and Mark Taylor of Educators for Mumia.
Listen to the interviews here
Listen to the interviews here
May 17 Oral Arguments - The People Gather in Solidarity
Thank you to all who showed support on May 17th for Mumia's Oral Arguments which were heard before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. In the next coming months we will receive word on the court's decision which could be anything from granting Mumia a new trial, to an execution date.
CLICK HERE for radio interviews at Mumia's court hearing with Ward Churchill, Ramona Africa and others.
CLICK HERE for pictures taken by Eroc of the Foundation Movement on May 17th in Philly.
CLICK HERE for more pictures!
Statement by William Singletary, a witness in the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal
Following is a Statement by William Singletary, a witness in the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal (1995 PCRA hearing). This statement was sent to the Labor Action Committee To Free Mumia Abu-Jamal, in order that it be read at rallies held in solidarity with death-row journalist Mumia Abu-Jamal, on the day of what likely is his last appeal hearing--before a panel of the Third Circuit federal court in Philadelphia, PA, May 17th 2007.
Singletary says he is perhaps the only true witness to the events of the early morning hours of December 9th, 1981, at 13th and Locust streets in Philadelphia, at which radio journalist and former Black Panther Mumia Abu-Jamal was beaten, and fingered by police for the murder of a police officer. Singletary was never called to testify at the rigged and racist charade, which is sometimes referred to as Mumia's1982 trial.
Singletary insists that Mumia Abu-Jamal did not even arrive on the scene until after the officer was shot, and did not in any way participate in the shooting. Mumia himself was a victim, having been shot and then viciously attacked by white Philadelphia cops.
The hearing on May 17th may be Mumia's last. It concerns only a few issues out of a great many outstanding questions in this case, most of which have never been heard in court. The evidence shows that Mumia is innocent, and the statement below is just one of the many proofs of that fact. Rallies in solidarity with Mumia Abu-Jamal are being held in Philadelphia, New York, Chicago, San Francsco and San Jose California, as well as London, Toronto, Amsterdam, and others internationally.
(for a photocopy of the original signed statement, send a request by email to: LACFreeMumia@aol.com.)
Good-morning/Afternoon;
My name is William Singletary. I am an eye-witness to the murder or assassination of Police Officer Daniel Faulkner on December 9, 1981, in the early morning hours at 13th and Locust Street in Philadelphia, PA.
Mumia Abu-Jamal did not shoot Daniel Faulkner. I stood as close as 12 to 15 feet when Officer Faulkner was killed. When two bullets were viciously pumped into Officer Faulkner, the shooter then looked into my direction.
We locked eyes for a few seconds. His stare was like a thousand ice picks aiming for my heart. I slowly backed up; we never unlocked eyes until he flung the 22 caliber pistol to the right rear wheel of the Volkswagen.
That's the type of weapon that killed the officer. I saw it and I told the cops where to retrieve the weapon.
This story has had many twists and turns, according to the police, D.A., and prosecutor's office. None of what they stated is true. As I said, I saw the whole thing as it happened and it was not the way they said. They concocted a story, and put it on paper and the whole world believed what they said. I was told to keep quiet by the police, by Mr. Jamal's attorneys, and people on the street that I had always confided in. No one wanted to lose their business or their jobs. So I was left alone, by myself with this burden of "who will listen to me?" In the city of Philly I was a loner or the "Crazy Nigger" that won't shut up. But when we would be alone or with some brothers that truly believed that Mumia was innocent, guided me through turbulent times.
I came through by moving time after time and taking low-paying jobs to support my family. My family even turned their backs. I lost everything I owned just for telling the truth. I never knew people could be so mean; I am talking about professional people. I watched those cops turn into pure animals when they did their dance around Mr. Jamal. They beat him and kicked him, spit on him, called him nigger and violated all of his civil rights. Every one of those cops on the scene took part in the beating and the little dirty dance they did.
Mr. Jamal cried and begged them to stop because he had been shot, but they continued to punch, kick, and beat him with their blackjacks until he was unable to move on his own power. They then picked him up and tried to split his body on a "No Parking" sign. At this point he was too weak to say anything. The cops kept chanting, "Ramp, Ramp, Ramp" in reference to an officer that was slain at an early Move confrontation. This was a retribution for his reporting of that incident.
I don't know about all the ins and outs of this case. But what I do know is that Mumia Abu-Jamal did not shoot Police Officer Daniel Faulkner. Mr. Jamal was savagely beaten by the Philadelphia police. The whooping of Mr. Jamal makes Rodney King's beating look like a picnic. I mean I have traveled the world, been in a war zone, and come home to witness this barbaric, savage, animal-like beating of another human being. These are sworn officers of the law, all white, not one black. They know what I saw and I've been threatened ever since. Not to the point of bodily harm, but to the point of the loss of my businesses and all my friends.
When I speak of this I sometimes shiver to think of all the pain he suffered at the hands of people who were sworn to serve and protect. I would just like to say I am not crazy or fantasizing about anything. What I said is the whole truth. I am glad to have you all listen and speak to whomever to give this man a new trial. I was never called to the first trial so maybe I will be called to the next one. I am a Vietnam Veteran; I did receive a purple heart for wounds received in combat. I received an honorable discharge. I successfully ran legit businesses in Philly before I was "ran out of town."
Hopefully there is someone within the sound of my voice that can reach out and help these twenty-five years of hell to be brought to some kind of closure. As I said and keep saying, "Mumia Abu-Jamal is an innocent man."
I was there and I said what I saw. So please continue to support him however you may.
Thank you. "Peace brothers and sisters"
Signed,
William Singletary
Singletary says he is perhaps the only true witness to the events of the early morning hours of December 9th, 1981, at 13th and Locust streets in Philadelphia, at which radio journalist and former Black Panther Mumia Abu-Jamal was beaten, and fingered by police for the murder of a police officer. Singletary was never called to testify at the rigged and racist charade, which is sometimes referred to as Mumia's1982 trial.
Singletary insists that Mumia Abu-Jamal did not even arrive on the scene until after the officer was shot, and did not in any way participate in the shooting. Mumia himself was a victim, having been shot and then viciously attacked by white Philadelphia cops.
The hearing on May 17th may be Mumia's last. It concerns only a few issues out of a great many outstanding questions in this case, most of which have never been heard in court. The evidence shows that Mumia is innocent, and the statement below is just one of the many proofs of that fact. Rallies in solidarity with Mumia Abu-Jamal are being held in Philadelphia, New York, Chicago, San Francsco and San Jose California, as well as London, Toronto, Amsterdam, and others internationally.
(for a photocopy of the original signed statement, send a request by email to: LACFreeMumia@aol.com.)
Good-morning/Afternoon;
My name is William Singletary. I am an eye-witness to the murder or assassination of Police Officer Daniel Faulkner on December 9, 1981, in the early morning hours at 13th and Locust Street in Philadelphia, PA.
Mumia Abu-Jamal did not shoot Daniel Faulkner. I stood as close as 12 to 15 feet when Officer Faulkner was killed. When two bullets were viciously pumped into Officer Faulkner, the shooter then looked into my direction.
We locked eyes for a few seconds. His stare was like a thousand ice picks aiming for my heart. I slowly backed up; we never unlocked eyes until he flung the 22 caliber pistol to the right rear wheel of the Volkswagen.
That's the type of weapon that killed the officer. I saw it and I told the cops where to retrieve the weapon.
This story has had many twists and turns, according to the police, D.A., and prosecutor's office. None of what they stated is true. As I said, I saw the whole thing as it happened and it was not the way they said. They concocted a story, and put it on paper and the whole world believed what they said. I was told to keep quiet by the police, by Mr. Jamal's attorneys, and people on the street that I had always confided in. No one wanted to lose their business or their jobs. So I was left alone, by myself with this burden of "who will listen to me?" In the city of Philly I was a loner or the "Crazy Nigger" that won't shut up. But when we would be alone or with some brothers that truly believed that Mumia was innocent, guided me through turbulent times.
I came through by moving time after time and taking low-paying jobs to support my family. My family even turned their backs. I lost everything I owned just for telling the truth. I never knew people could be so mean; I am talking about professional people. I watched those cops turn into pure animals when they did their dance around Mr. Jamal. They beat him and kicked him, spit on him, called him nigger and violated all of his civil rights. Every one of those cops on the scene took part in the beating and the little dirty dance they did.
Mr. Jamal cried and begged them to stop because he had been shot, but they continued to punch, kick, and beat him with their blackjacks until he was unable to move on his own power. They then picked him up and tried to split his body on a "No Parking" sign. At this point he was too weak to say anything. The cops kept chanting, "Ramp, Ramp, Ramp" in reference to an officer that was slain at an early Move confrontation. This was a retribution for his reporting of that incident.
I don't know about all the ins and outs of this case. But what I do know is that Mumia Abu-Jamal did not shoot Police Officer Daniel Faulkner. Mr. Jamal was savagely beaten by the Philadelphia police. The whooping of Mr. Jamal makes Rodney King's beating look like a picnic. I mean I have traveled the world, been in a war zone, and come home to witness this barbaric, savage, animal-like beating of another human being. These are sworn officers of the law, all white, not one black. They know what I saw and I've been threatened ever since. Not to the point of bodily harm, but to the point of the loss of my businesses and all my friends.
When I speak of this I sometimes shiver to think of all the pain he suffered at the hands of people who were sworn to serve and protect. I would just like to say I am not crazy or fantasizing about anything. What I said is the whole truth. I am glad to have you all listen and speak to whomever to give this man a new trial. I was never called to the first trial so maybe I will be called to the next one. I am a Vietnam Veteran; I did receive a purple heart for wounds received in combat. I received an honorable discharge. I successfully ran legit businesses in Philly before I was "ran out of town."
Hopefully there is someone within the sound of my voice that can reach out and help these twenty-five years of hell to be brought to some kind of closure. As I said and keep saying, "Mumia Abu-Jamal is an innocent man."
I was there and I said what I saw. So please continue to support him however you may.
Thank you. "Peace brothers and sisters"
Signed,
William Singletary
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Tyrants hate free speech
by Hans Bennett
Wednesday, 09 May 2007
Police intimidate Mumia supporters as May 17 court date looms
"I received nothing less than 10 or 15 death threats over the last four weeks from so-called Philadelphia police officers. I assured them that I would show up today, so they would have an opportunity to kill me. They've intimidated and scared folks. They've done what the Ku Klux Klan has always done in America: terrified Black people, poor people, immigrants and good white people" into stepping down and not confronting racism, declared Sgt. DeLacy Davis, of Black Cops Against Police Brutality.
Davis was speaking at an April 24 event in Philadelphia organized by supporters of Black death-row journalist Mumia Abu-Jamal. Widely considered to be a political prisoner, Abu-Jamal was convicted of killing white Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner in a 1982 trial that Amnesty International has declared a "violation of minimum international standards that govern fair trial procedures and the use of the death penalty,"
Hundreds had gathered in Philadelphia on April 24 to celebrate Abu-Jamal's birthday and to publicize his upcoming oral argument before the federal 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia on May 17.
The event was met by a counter-demonstration of over a hundred plainclothes police officers - a culmination of recent intimidation tactics by the Fraternal Order of Police, who have long been key opponents of a new trial for Abu-Jamal.
Condemning both the police counter-demonstration and the death threats he had reported, Sgt. Davis passionately declared that "the behavior and tactics" he had observed from police outside was "exactly" what he had witnessed from the Ku Klux Klan. "It is that intimidation factor that we have to address and deal with."
Other guest speakers on April 24 criticized the recent FOP intimidation. Emphasizing the long history of resistance to U.S. racism, Philadelphia journalist Linn Washington told the crowd that "this struggle today around Mumia is not new."
Washington then cited the 19th century Black journalist and abolitionist, Frederick Douglass, who observed, "Tyrants hate free speech." Pointing to the large police counter-protest outside the building, he asked, "If the evidence against Mumia is as overwhelming as it is claimed to be, why is there such a shrill reaction" to someone questioning the evidence?
In his column written the previous week in the Black Philadelphia Tribune newspaper, Washington documented how the April 24 event had to change locations after police intimidation of the previous Clef Club venue. He wrote that the "anti-Abu-Jamal barrage of emails and telephone calls unleashed on the Clef Club included declarations perilously close to terroristic threats."
Earlier that month, an April 15 hip hop concert and fundraiser for Mumia organized by youth in New York City was also forced to relocate when police intimidated the owner of the Remote Lounge. The Amsterdam News, the venerable Black Harlem-based paper, reported that "after receiving 16 citations, thousands of dollars in fines and allegedly malicious threats, the night club owner canceled the concert, two days before the scheduled event."
Acting as the NYC Free Mumia Coalition's legal representative, attorney Michael Tarif Warren later declared at a press conference outside City Hall that "the police engaged in a conspiracy to close this event to prevent a worthy cause." Quoted by Amsterdam News, Warren called for "a fair hearing to air the legal improprieties" of the NYPD.
Comments posted by police officers on the infamous NYPD "RANT" blog website detailed the intimidation campaign. One post stated, "This f--ker should be dead, we should ruin this event and make life miserable for every f-ing Hollywood liberal scum liker that shows up, fry Mumia."
Other posts threatened to send the violent Hells Angels motorcycle gang into the Remote Lounge, set up road blocks, send in undercover police, lure people with prostitutes, write up tickets, throw citations on the club and more.
After the event was forced to relocate, an April 15 thread on the "RANT" site was titled "NY Mumia Hip Hop Benefit Rally Gets Bitch Slapped." One post under the name "Philadelphia Police Highway Patrol" said: "A sincere thank you to all of my NYPD brothers and sisters. You men and women are truly the best!"
Several other posts continued to boast of their actions with comments like "good job guys , f--k you mumia you dirty savage," "I'm shocked, amazed, and feel a warm glow! Great work. Outstanding!!!," "16 citations - and guess what the hits are gonna keep coming you f--k wad," "Does anyone sell Mumia targets, so I can keep his cause alive in spirit?"
Another wrote: "Everything I know about islam I learned on 9/11."
One post used imagery that explicitly drew the connection to the brutal history of U.S. lynchings, where Black victims of racist white mobs were literally burned alive, stating that "I'm waiting for Mumia to be well done on the rotisserie."
Yet another post used the racist "Sambo" dialect attributed to African Americans for so many years in mainstream culture: "OH SNAP!!! da venue be changed? i hopez publik transpotation be making itz way ova dere fo me!"
Mobilizing for May 17
Pam Africa is the coordinator of The International Concerned Family and Friends of Mumia Abu-Jamal. She's asking people to come to Philadelphia on May 17 and "show that the whole world is watching these oral arguments."
And she urges people to organize local events if they are unable to travel. "We need public pressure to ensure the court's fairness."
"I believe Mumia is innocent and am personally calling for his immediate release. However, I'll work with anyone supporting a fair trial. By demanding a new trial, we can work with those who know the trial was rotten but are unsure of Mumia's innocence.
"Mumia can still be executed. Further, since the Supreme Court is unlikely to hear his case, this is realistically his last chance to get a new trial. We understand that they're getting ready to kill another Black revolutionary who has refused to bow down and suck up to his oppressor. His case represents all that is wrong with this system. We must take action now before it's too late."
On Thursday, May 17, the day of the hearing, San Franciscans will show the world is watching by rallying in support of Mumia in front of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, 95 Seventh St., near Market, at 4-6 p.m. For more information and to get involved in saving and freeing Mumia, call (415) 255-1085.
Hans Bennett (insubordination.blogspot.com) is a Philadelphia-based photojournalist documenting the movement to free Mumia and all political prisoners, and is co-founder of "Journalists for Mumia" whose new website is: Abu-Jamal-News.com
Wednesday, 09 May 2007
Police intimidate Mumia supporters as May 17 court date looms
"I received nothing less than 10 or 15 death threats over the last four weeks from so-called Philadelphia police officers. I assured them that I would show up today, so they would have an opportunity to kill me. They've intimidated and scared folks. They've done what the Ku Klux Klan has always done in America: terrified Black people, poor people, immigrants and good white people" into stepping down and not confronting racism, declared Sgt. DeLacy Davis, of Black Cops Against Police Brutality.
Davis was speaking at an April 24 event in Philadelphia organized by supporters of Black death-row journalist Mumia Abu-Jamal. Widely considered to be a political prisoner, Abu-Jamal was convicted of killing white Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner in a 1982 trial that Amnesty International has declared a "violation of minimum international standards that govern fair trial procedures and the use of the death penalty,"
Hundreds had gathered in Philadelphia on April 24 to celebrate Abu-Jamal's birthday and to publicize his upcoming oral argument before the federal 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia on May 17.
The event was met by a counter-demonstration of over a hundred plainclothes police officers - a culmination of recent intimidation tactics by the Fraternal Order of Police, who have long been key opponents of a new trial for Abu-Jamal.
Condemning both the police counter-demonstration and the death threats he had reported, Sgt. Davis passionately declared that "the behavior and tactics" he had observed from police outside was "exactly" what he had witnessed from the Ku Klux Klan. "It is that intimidation factor that we have to address and deal with."
Other guest speakers on April 24 criticized the recent FOP intimidation. Emphasizing the long history of resistance to U.S. racism, Philadelphia journalist Linn Washington told the crowd that "this struggle today around Mumia is not new."
Washington then cited the 19th century Black journalist and abolitionist, Frederick Douglass, who observed, "Tyrants hate free speech." Pointing to the large police counter-protest outside the building, he asked, "If the evidence against Mumia is as overwhelming as it is claimed to be, why is there such a shrill reaction" to someone questioning the evidence?
In his column written the previous week in the Black Philadelphia Tribune newspaper, Washington documented how the April 24 event had to change locations after police intimidation of the previous Clef Club venue. He wrote that the "anti-Abu-Jamal barrage of emails and telephone calls unleashed on the Clef Club included declarations perilously close to terroristic threats."
Earlier that month, an April 15 hip hop concert and fundraiser for Mumia organized by youth in New York City was also forced to relocate when police intimidated the owner of the Remote Lounge. The Amsterdam News, the venerable Black Harlem-based paper, reported that "after receiving 16 citations, thousands of dollars in fines and allegedly malicious threats, the night club owner canceled the concert, two days before the scheduled event."
Acting as the NYC Free Mumia Coalition's legal representative, attorney Michael Tarif Warren later declared at a press conference outside City Hall that "the police engaged in a conspiracy to close this event to prevent a worthy cause." Quoted by Amsterdam News, Warren called for "a fair hearing to air the legal improprieties" of the NYPD.
Comments posted by police officers on the infamous NYPD "RANT" blog website detailed the intimidation campaign. One post stated, "This f--ker should be dead, we should ruin this event and make life miserable for every f-ing Hollywood liberal scum liker that shows up, fry Mumia."
Other posts threatened to send the violent Hells Angels motorcycle gang into the Remote Lounge, set up road blocks, send in undercover police, lure people with prostitutes, write up tickets, throw citations on the club and more.
After the event was forced to relocate, an April 15 thread on the "RANT" site was titled "NY Mumia Hip Hop Benefit Rally Gets Bitch Slapped." One post under the name "Philadelphia Police Highway Patrol" said: "A sincere thank you to all of my NYPD brothers and sisters. You men and women are truly the best!"
Several other posts continued to boast of their actions with comments like "good job guys , f--k you mumia you dirty savage," "I'm shocked, amazed, and feel a warm glow! Great work. Outstanding!!!," "16 citations - and guess what the hits are gonna keep coming you f--k wad," "Does anyone sell Mumia targets, so I can keep his cause alive in spirit?"
Another wrote: "Everything I know about islam I learned on 9/11."
One post used imagery that explicitly drew the connection to the brutal history of U.S. lynchings, where Black victims of racist white mobs were literally burned alive, stating that "I'm waiting for Mumia to be well done on the rotisserie."
Yet another post used the racist "Sambo" dialect attributed to African Americans for so many years in mainstream culture: "OH SNAP!!! da venue be changed? i hopez publik transpotation be making itz way ova dere fo me!"
Mobilizing for May 17
Pam Africa is the coordinator of The International Concerned Family and Friends of Mumia Abu-Jamal. She's asking people to come to Philadelphia on May 17 and "show that the whole world is watching these oral arguments."
And she urges people to organize local events if they are unable to travel. "We need public pressure to ensure the court's fairness."
"I believe Mumia is innocent and am personally calling for his immediate release. However, I'll work with anyone supporting a fair trial. By demanding a new trial, we can work with those who know the trial was rotten but are unsure of Mumia's innocence.
"Mumia can still be executed. Further, since the Supreme Court is unlikely to hear his case, this is realistically his last chance to get a new trial. We understand that they're getting ready to kill another Black revolutionary who has refused to bow down and suck up to his oppressor. His case represents all that is wrong with this system. We must take action now before it's too late."
On Thursday, May 17, the day of the hearing, San Franciscans will show the world is watching by rallying in support of Mumia in front of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, 95 Seventh St., near Market, at 4-6 p.m. For more information and to get involved in saving and freeing Mumia, call (415) 255-1085.
Hans Bennett (insubordination.blogspot.com) is a Philadelphia-based photojournalist documenting the movement to free Mumia and all political prisoners, and is co-founder of "Journalists for Mumia" whose new website is: Abu-Jamal-News.com
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Mumia Teach-In May 16
EMAJ
EDUCATORS FOR MUMIA ABU-JAMAL
12 Years Educating and Organizing for Abu-Jamal and Justice
Contacts:
Professor Mark Taylor, Princeton Theological Seminary, 845 893-5721, at mark.taylor @ ptsem.edu;
Prof. Johanna Fernandez (Carnegie Mellon), jfernan1 @ andrew.cmu.edu;
Tameka L. Cage, (Bucknell Univ), tlc022 @ bucknell.edu
Institutions for identification purposes only.
EDUCATORS TO HOLD TEACH-IN ON MUMIA ABU-JAMAL
SCHOLARS OF HISTORY, LAW, JOURNALISM, LITERATURE, AND RELIGION GATHER IN PHILLY
May 16 Teach-In on
Eve of Key Arguments in Courthouse on May 17
Princeton, NJ. May 11, 2007. Key scholars from Pennsylvania and around the country will meet in Philadelphia on Wednesday night, May 16, to conduct a Teach-In on the controversial case of Mumia Abu-Jamal. Abu-Jamal was convicted in 1982 for the shooting death of Philadelphia police officer, Daniel Faulkner, in a trial so controversial that public outcries for Abu-Jamal's new trial, and even release, have become ever more frequent in human rights communities. Amnesty International wrote that "justice would be best served by a new trial."
One of the Teach-In organizers, Mark Taylor of Princeton, said, "It is important that the U.S. Third Circuit Court will be hearing, on May 17, three of Mumia's claims about his denial of due process in the original trial." Another organizer of the EMAJ conference, Johanna Fernandez of Carnegie Mellon University, added, "In his case, the pillars that guarantee a fair trial were terribly broken: The presiding judge was openly racist, and Abu-Jamal was convicted without hard evidence."
Present at the Teach-In will be German literature professor, Michael Schiffman of the University of Heidelberg, who has published information on photos taken early at the crime scene, potentially exculpatory for Abu-Jamal, which were not used by police and prosecutors at the original trial. Also present will be Kathleen Cleaver (law professor, Emory University), Linn Washington (journalism, Temple University), Joy James (Africana Studies, Williams College), Tameka L. Cage (English, Bucknell University, also on the EMAJ advisory council) and Dave Lindorff (independent journalist)
______________________
DREXEL UNIVERSITY, Matheson Hall, Rm. 109. 32nd & Market Streets, Philadelphia
EDUCATORS FOR MUMIA ABU-JAMAL
12 Years Educating and Organizing for Abu-Jamal and Justice
Contacts:
Professor Mark Taylor, Princeton Theological Seminary, 845 893-5721, at mark.taylor @ ptsem.edu;
Prof. Johanna Fernandez (Carnegie Mellon), jfernan1 @ andrew.cmu.edu;
Tameka L. Cage, (Bucknell Univ), tlc022 @ bucknell.edu
Institutions for identification purposes only.
EDUCATORS TO HOLD TEACH-IN ON MUMIA ABU-JAMAL
SCHOLARS OF HISTORY, LAW, JOURNALISM, LITERATURE, AND RELIGION GATHER IN PHILLY
May 16 Teach-In on
Eve of Key Arguments in Courthouse on May 17
Princeton, NJ. May 11, 2007. Key scholars from Pennsylvania and around the country will meet in Philadelphia on Wednesday night, May 16, to conduct a Teach-In on the controversial case of Mumia Abu-Jamal. Abu-Jamal was convicted in 1982 for the shooting death of Philadelphia police officer, Daniel Faulkner, in a trial so controversial that public outcries for Abu-Jamal's new trial, and even release, have become ever more frequent in human rights communities. Amnesty International wrote that "justice would be best served by a new trial."
One of the Teach-In organizers, Mark Taylor of Princeton, said, "It is important that the U.S. Third Circuit Court will be hearing, on May 17, three of Mumia's claims about his denial of due process in the original trial." Another organizer of the EMAJ conference, Johanna Fernandez of Carnegie Mellon University, added, "In his case, the pillars that guarantee a fair trial were terribly broken: The presiding judge was openly racist, and Abu-Jamal was convicted without hard evidence."
Present at the Teach-In will be German literature professor, Michael Schiffman of the University of Heidelberg, who has published information on photos taken early at the crime scene, potentially exculpatory for Abu-Jamal, which were not used by police and prosecutors at the original trial. Also present will be Kathleen Cleaver (law professor, Emory University), Linn Washington (journalism, Temple University), Joy James (Africana Studies, Williams College), Tameka L. Cage (English, Bucknell University, also on the EMAJ advisory council) and Dave Lindorff (independent journalist)
______________________
DREXEL UNIVERSITY, Matheson Hall, Rm. 109. 32nd & Market Streets, Philadelphia
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)