Come and Join us for a very special event!!!
The Black Cotton Foundation
Date: Saturday, November 7, 2009
Time: 7:00pm - 9:00pm
Location: The Malcolm X & Dr. Betty Shabazz Memorial and Education Center
Street: 3940 Broadway @ 165th Street, Washington Heights
City/Town: New York, NY
We invite you to join us for a very special evening at a very sacred place. The Black Cotton Foundation will be celebrating the 75th Birthday of Dr. Betty Shabazz as they present their 3rd annual Dr. Betty Bahiyah Shabazz Award. This award is given to a person or family who are a positive light in our community despite suffering as tragic loss or overcoming overwhelming obstacles on their own.
This year's recipients are activist Pam Africa of the Move Movement and Chairperson of the Friends of Mumia Coalition and Civil Rights Movement (and) icon Myrlie Evers-Williams, widow of Medgar Evers, author, and former chairperson of the NAACP. There will also be a special award presented to Jasmina Anema, a 6 year old girl who is suffering from a rare form of leukemia; her courage inspired the entire community by thousands of people coming out to bone marrow drives to save her life.
So join us for an evening of singing, dancing, spoken word, stepping, inspiration, laughs, and tears as we celebrate the life of a great woman, Dr. Betty Shabazz. Best of all, it's free!!! :o)
-----------------
Forwarded Message:
CONGRATULATIONS, RECIPIENTS! :-)
From Facebook: Bro. Raheim Singleton
======================
Dr. Betty Bahiyah Shabazz Award Ceremony & 75th Birthday Celebration
Come and Join us for a very special event!!!
The Black Cotton Foundation
Date: Saturday, November 7, 2009
Time: 7:00pm - 9:00pm
Location: The Malcolm X & Dr. Betty Shabazz Memorial and Education Center
Street: 3940 Broadway @ 165th Street, Washington Heights
City/Town: New York, NY
We invite you to join us for a very special evening at a very sacred place. The Black Cotton Foundation will be celebrating the 75th Birthday of Dr. Betty Shabazz as they present their 3rd annual Dr. Betty Bahiyah Shabazz Award. This award is given to a person or family who are a positive light in our community despite suffering as tragic loss or overcoming overwhelming obstacles on their own.
This year's recipients are activist Pam Africa of the Move Movement and Chairperson of the Friends of Mumia Coalition and Civil Rights Movement (and) icon Myrlie Evers-Williams, widow of Medgar Evers, author, and former chairperson of the NAACP. There will also be a special award presented to Jasmina Anema, a 6 year old girl who is suffering from a rare form of leukemia; her courage inspired the entire community by thousands of people coming out to bone marrow drives to save her life.
So join us for an evening of singing, dancing, spoken word, stepping, inspiration, laughs, and tears as we celebrate the life of a great woman, Dr. Betty Shabazz. Best of all, it's free!!! :o)
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Monday, October 26, 2009
11/12-- Come to Washington to Demand Civil Rights for Mumia!
SAVE THURSDAY NOVEMBER 12TH FOR THE DELIVERY OF THE LETTERS, CALLING FOR A CIVIL RIGHTS INVESTIGATION OF MUMIA'S CASE, TO ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER !!!
For more info, go to:
http://www.phillyimc.org/en/november-12-come-washington-demand-civil-rights-mumia
For more info, go to:
http://www.phillyimc.org/en/november-12-come-washington-demand-civil-rights-mumia
Thursday, October 22, 2009
SAVE THURS NOV 12 TO DELIVER LETTERS TO ERIC HOLDER AT JUSTICE DEPARTMENT!
SAVE THURSDAY NOVEMBER 12TH FOR THE DELIVERY OF THE LETTERS, CALLING FOR A CIVIL RIGHTS INVESTIGATION OF MUMIA'S CASE, TO ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER !!!
11 AM PRESS CONFERENCE
1 PM DELIVERY OF LETTERS TO JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
AT THIS CRITICAL MOMENT IN MUMIA'S CASE, A CIVIL RIGHTS INVESTIGATION COULD MEAN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LIFE AND DEATH FOR HIM. IT COULD ALSO OPEN THE DOOR FOR MUMIA'S ULTIMATE RELEASE.
There is right now a very dangerous converging of forces committed to the execution of Mumia. Lynne Abraham, the current District Attorney in Philadelphia, is calling loudly for the Supreme Court to reinstate Mumia's death sentence so that Governor Ed Rendell can do what he has repeatedly promised to do: sign the death warrant. The US Supreme Court is currently reviewing a death penalty case that could have serious implications for Mumia. A ruling on Mumia's case could come anytime.
To cover up the obscenity of their trying to murder an innocent Black man, a great thinker and revolutionary, they now have a Black man, Seth Williams, leading the race for those running to replace DA Abraham. Williams, who is expected to be the next DA of Philadelphia, has stated that he believes Mumia is guilty and should be executed. He is being actively supported by the Fraternal Order of Police.
Finally, on December 9th, the 28th anniversary of the original incident that led to Mumia's incarceration and death sentence, a new film, a hit-piece, called "The Barrel of a Gun" also produced by a Black man, will premiere both in the US and Germany.
PLEASE JOIN US. YOU CAN DO ANY OR ALL OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. Organizations: co-sponsor the November 12th event at the Justice Department, and please, send us whatever financial contributions you can. We are asking for at least $50 from each organization. Checks should be made out to the FMAJC/IFCO and sent to FMAJC, PO Box 16, College Station, New York, NY 10030, or you can make a contribution on www.freemumia.com
2. Organizations and individuals: help us get the word out. Mobilize. Raise and contribute money. Forward this letter to your lists. Fliers will be ready in a few days.
3. Come to the Coalition's next meeting, FRIDAY, OCTOBER 23rd, at 6:30 PM at ST. MARY'S CHURCH, 521 WEST 126TH STREET, BETWEEN AMSTERDAM AND BROADWAY to get fliers, share ideas, and volunteer your work and financial contributions. Organizations are urged to send representatives. Everyone attending will be encouraged to take on work.
Ona Move!
Pam Africa, International Concerned Family and Friends of Mumia Abu-Jamal
Suzanne Ross, Free Mumia Abu-Jamal Coalition
For more information: Call 212-330-8029, 215-476-8812 and check www.freemumia.com
11 AM PRESS CONFERENCE
1 PM DELIVERY OF LETTERS TO JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
AT THIS CRITICAL MOMENT IN MUMIA'S CASE, A CIVIL RIGHTS INVESTIGATION COULD MEAN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LIFE AND DEATH FOR HIM. IT COULD ALSO OPEN THE DOOR FOR MUMIA'S ULTIMATE RELEASE.
There is right now a very dangerous converging of forces committed to the execution of Mumia. Lynne Abraham, the current District Attorney in Philadelphia, is calling loudly for the Supreme Court to reinstate Mumia's death sentence so that Governor Ed Rendell can do what he has repeatedly promised to do: sign the death warrant. The US Supreme Court is currently reviewing a death penalty case that could have serious implications for Mumia. A ruling on Mumia's case could come anytime.
To cover up the obscenity of their trying to murder an innocent Black man, a great thinker and revolutionary, they now have a Black man, Seth Williams, leading the race for those running to replace DA Abraham. Williams, who is expected to be the next DA of Philadelphia, has stated that he believes Mumia is guilty and should be executed. He is being actively supported by the Fraternal Order of Police.
Finally, on December 9th, the 28th anniversary of the original incident that led to Mumia's incarceration and death sentence, a new film, a hit-piece, called "The Barrel of a Gun" also produced by a Black man, will premiere both in the US and Germany.
PLEASE JOIN US. YOU CAN DO ANY OR ALL OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. Organizations: co-sponsor the November 12th event at the Justice Department, and please, send us whatever financial contributions you can. We are asking for at least $50 from each organization. Checks should be made out to the FMAJC/IFCO and sent to FMAJC, PO Box 16, College Station, New York, NY 10030, or you can make a contribution on www.freemumia.com
2. Organizations and individuals: help us get the word out. Mobilize. Raise and contribute money. Forward this letter to your lists. Fliers will be ready in a few days.
3. Come to the Coalition's next meeting, FRIDAY, OCTOBER 23rd, at 6:30 PM at ST. MARY'S CHURCH, 521 WEST 126TH STREET, BETWEEN AMSTERDAM AND BROADWAY to get fliers, share ideas, and volunteer your work and financial contributions. Organizations are urged to send representatives. Everyone attending will be encouraged to take on work.
WORK MEETING:
FRIDAY, OCT 23, 6:30 PM, AT ST. MARY'S CHURCH, 521 WEST 126TH STREET
(LIST OF SPONSORING ORGANIZATIONS AND OTHER DETAILS WILL FOLLOW, AS WILL FLIERS)
Free Mumia and All Political Prisoners! Abolish the Death Penalty! Abolish the Prison Industrial Complex!
Ona Move!
Pam Africa, International Concerned Family and Friends of Mumia Abu-Jamal
Suzanne Ross, Free Mumia Abu-Jamal Coalition
For more information: Call 212-330-8029, 215-476-8812 and check www.freemumia.com
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Second Legal Intelligencer Article on Mumia's death penalty
Please go to http://www.freemumia.com/meeting.html for info on 10/17 EMERGENCY MEETING and make plans to attend!
From: Hans Bennett:
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202434533155&Mumia_AbuJamals_Life_May_Hinge_on_Case_of_NeoNazi_Triple_Murderer
Mumia Abu-Jamal's Life May Hinge on Case of Neo-Nazi Triple Murderer
Shannon P. Duffy
10-14-2009
In a bizarre twist of fate, Mumia Abu-Jamal -- the convicted cop killer whose quarter century on death row in Pennsylvania has made him internationally famous -- may find that his very life hinges on the outcome of a U.S. Supreme Court argument on Tuesday in the case of a neo-Nazi triple murderer who wore a Hitler mustache at trial as he testified proudly about his desire to kill blacks, Jews and gays.
For Abu-Jamal, the stakes couldn't be higher. And the worst-case scenario is that the decision in the Ohio case, Smith v. Spisak, could directly lead to a reinstatement of Abu-Jamal's death sentence.
But the justices may never reach the legal issues that Abu-Jamal shares with Frank Spisak, the neo-Nazi convicted in that case. That could happen if the high court instead focuses entirely on issues relating to whether Spisak's defense lawyer at trial did such a poor job in delivering his closing argument in the death penalty phase that his death sentence cannot stand.
If Spisak secures a victory purely on those grounds, the justices might find it unnecessary to rule on a second issue -- whether the jury instructions were confusing and faulty in Spisak's (and in Abu-Jamal's) case.
Abu-Jamal's case has been in a kind of legal limbo since April. The justices rejected Abu-Jamal's petition for certiorari -- effectively upholding his conviction for the murder of Philadelphia Police Officer Daniel Faulkner -- but took no action on a petition from the Philadelphia district attorney seeking to have his death sentence reinstated.
It soon became clear that the justices were holding the Philadelphia prosecutors' petition in abeyance because they had agreed to hear Spisak's case, which raised a nearly identical issue.
Typically in such cases, the justices decide the first case and then, if necessary, issue summary reversals in the other pending cases that raised the same issue, sending them back to the lower courts to reconsider in light of the high court's most recent pronouncement.
The issue that Abu-Jamal shares with Spisak is that both men won court rulings that overturned their death sentences based on Mills v. Maryland, a 1988 U.S. Supreme Court decision that governs how juries should deliberate during the penalty phase of a capital trial.
In Mills, the justices struck down a Maryland statute that said juries in capital cases must be unanimous on any aggravating or mitigating factor.
The 5-4 decision declared that unanimity was properly required only for "aggravating" factors that support death sentences, but that mitigating factors -- those that weigh against imposing a death sentence -- must be handled more liberally, with each juror free to find on his or her own.
The question now before the courts is whether Mills requires that death sentences in other states be overturned if the juries in those states are misled by faulty instructions or verdict forms to believe that mitigating factors require unanimity.
Perhaps even more important to the justices is a corollary question of federalism: Is it fair for the federal courts to overturn a state court's decision on how to interpretMills by imposing its own interpretation that extends Mills beyond its original scope?
A BIZARRE CLOSING ARGUMENT
But in Tuesday's argument, the justices spent most of their time discussing Spisak's second argument -- that his trial lawyer had delivered such a poor closing argument in the penalty phase that he was effectively denied effective representation.
On that point, the justices were all over the map.
"Have you ever heard or read a defense summation that was more derogatory of the defendant than the summation here?" Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. asked Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray.
Cordray insisted that the trial lawyer had done the best he could with "the bed that was made by his client, who got on the stand for days on end and spewed his racist propaganda, made it clear that he was not only unrepentant but was triumphant."
Alito pressed the point, saying the lawyer told the jury that Spisak demanded no sympathy, and asked: "Isn't that exactly what he has to appeal for in order not to get a death verdict, sympathy based on mental illness, despite the horrific crimes that this person committed?"
Cordray disagreed, saying he considered the lawyer's speech to be part of a "coherent strategy" that was premised on telling the jury: "I can sense that you are not feeling sympathy for my client. Do what makes you a humane people, what makes us proud as a people, and do not give the death penalty to a person who is sick, demented, twisted, as my client has shown himself to be."
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg described the closing argument as "disjointed" and said, "it goes off on tangents that have nothing to do with the sentence. ... I mean, it really is quite a stream of consciousness."
But Ginsburg also asked Spisak's lawyer, Michael Benza of Chagrin Falls, Ohio: "Do you know of any case where ineffective assistance was found on the basis of a closing argument alone?"
Benza conceded he did not, but insisted that was only because Spisak's case was "such an outlier."
"I have been litigating capital cases since 1993. I have never seen a closing argument like this," Benza said.
A group of 20 law professors who teach trial advocacy filed an amicus brief supporting Spisak that urged the justices to declare that his trial lawyer's speech "was deficient to such a level that it constituted ineffective assistance of counsel."
But several justices seemed inclined to approve of the argument as a sound strategy.
As Justice Stephen Breyer described it: "It makes sense logically to say he has the worst defendant he has ever seen. He's murdered lots of people in cold blood. He gets up on the stand and says: ‘I'm going to kill a lot more.' He sounds totally bonkers."
Breyer said he interpreted the trial lawyer's strategy as recognizing that his insanity defense had failed, but nonetheless arguing to the jury, "We don't execute people who are crazy and this guy is crazy."
Justice Antonin Scalia went further, saying, "I thought it was a brilliant closing argument. ... Have you ever conducted a capital case in which the defendant takes the stand with a Hitler mustache and says he's glad for what he's done and he will do it again? ... This was an extraordinary trial, and it seems to me that the technique that counsel used to try to get mercy for this fellow was the best that could have been done."
In telephone interviews Tuesday afternoon, lawyers on both sides of the Abu-Jamal case expressed guarded optimism about the outcome in the Spisak case.
FACTS DIFFERENT ENOUGH?
Attorney Robert Bryan of San Francisco, the lead lawyer for Abu-Jamal, said he believes the Mills issue as it arose in Spisak's case is factually and procedurally different enough that the outcome will not dictate how Abu-Jamal's case should be decided.
But Deputy District Attorney Ronald Eisenberg, who attended the oral arguments, said he anticipates that the justices will reach the Mills issue and will find fault in the way the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals applied it in Spisak's case.
While most of the federal circuits have declined to extend Mills to cases in which there was a risk of juror confusion, Eisenberg said, the 6th Circuit did so in Spisak's case and the 3rd Circuit committed the same error in Abu-Jamal's case.
'PADILLA v. KENTUCKY'
In the first case argued Tuesday, Padilla v. Kentucky, a lawyer told his client, Jose Padilla, a permanent resident alien arrested for drug trafficking, that pleading guilty as part of a plea agreement would not expose him to deportation. That advice was flat wrong.
Padilla sued in 2004, claiming ineffective assistance that deprived him of his constitutional rights. But the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled that incorrect advice on matters that are collateral to the criminal case don't make out a case of ineffective assistance under the Supreme Court's Strickland v. Washington standard.
Most U.S. Supreme Court justices seemed wary of expanding the definition of ineffective assistance to include flawed advice on matters beyond the actual criminal case the lawyer is handling.
"We have to decide whether we are opening a Pandora's box here," said Scalia, who said flawed advice about the effect of a guilty plea on child custody could be another issue defendants would raise.
Breyer also said, "The world is filled with 42 billion circumstances" that could trigger ineffective-assistance claims for other reasons.
Stephen Kinnaird of Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker, arguing for Padilla, said deportation is "so severe and so material" that the court could limit its ruling to advice in that area. "The lawyer has the distinct duty to assess the advantages and disadvantages of the plea."
Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben told the court that a criminal defense lawyer does not have a constitutional duty to advise his client about immigration law, but if he or she does and does so incorrectly, "the lawyer has used his professional skills to undermine a personal decision that belongs to the defendant alone."
The Padilla case is being tracked by immigrant rights advocates who say thousands of immigrants have been put in jeopardy by poor legal representation and advice. "Every day, immigrants are advised to give up their rights and plead guilty to charges that subject them to lifetime exile," said Benita Jain, co-director of the Immigrant Defense Project.
Tony Mauro, the U.S. Supreme Court correspondent for The Legal Intelligencer affiliate The National Law Journal, contributed reporting to this article.
From: Hans Bennett:
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202434533155&Mumia_AbuJamals_Life_May_Hinge_on_Case_of_NeoNazi_Triple_Murderer
Mumia Abu-Jamal's Life May Hinge on Case of Neo-Nazi Triple Murderer
Shannon P. Duffy
10-14-2009
In a bizarre twist of fate, Mumia Abu-Jamal -- the convicted cop killer whose quarter century on death row in Pennsylvania has made him internationally famous -- may find that his very life hinges on the outcome of a U.S. Supreme Court argument on Tuesday in the case of a neo-Nazi triple murderer who wore a Hitler mustache at trial as he testified proudly about his desire to kill blacks, Jews and gays.
For Abu-Jamal, the stakes couldn't be higher. And the worst-case scenario is that the decision in the Ohio case, Smith v. Spisak, could directly lead to a reinstatement of Abu-Jamal's death sentence.
But the justices may never reach the legal issues that Abu-Jamal shares with Frank Spisak, the neo-Nazi convicted in that case. That could happen if the high court instead focuses entirely on issues relating to whether Spisak's defense lawyer at trial did such a poor job in delivering his closing argument in the death penalty phase that his death sentence cannot stand.
If Spisak secures a victory purely on those grounds, the justices might find it unnecessary to rule on a second issue -- whether the jury instructions were confusing and faulty in Spisak's (and in Abu-Jamal's) case.
Abu-Jamal's case has been in a kind of legal limbo since April. The justices rejected Abu-Jamal's petition for certiorari -- effectively upholding his conviction for the murder of Philadelphia Police Officer Daniel Faulkner -- but took no action on a petition from the Philadelphia district attorney seeking to have his death sentence reinstated.
It soon became clear that the justices were holding the Philadelphia prosecutors' petition in abeyance because they had agreed to hear Spisak's case, which raised a nearly identical issue.
Typically in such cases, the justices decide the first case and then, if necessary, issue summary reversals in the other pending cases that raised the same issue, sending them back to the lower courts to reconsider in light of the high court's most recent pronouncement.
The issue that Abu-Jamal shares with Spisak is that both men won court rulings that overturned their death sentences based on Mills v. Maryland, a 1988 U.S. Supreme Court decision that governs how juries should deliberate during the penalty phase of a capital trial.
In Mills, the justices struck down a Maryland statute that said juries in capital cases must be unanimous on any aggravating or mitigating factor.
The 5-4 decision declared that unanimity was properly required only for "aggravating" factors that support death sentences, but that mitigating factors -- those that weigh against imposing a death sentence -- must be handled more liberally, with each juror free to find on his or her own.
The question now before the courts is whether Mills requires that death sentences in other states be overturned if the juries in those states are misled by faulty instructions or verdict forms to believe that mitigating factors require unanimity.
Perhaps even more important to the justices is a corollary question of federalism: Is it fair for the federal courts to overturn a state court's decision on how to interpretMills by imposing its own interpretation that extends Mills beyond its original scope?
A BIZARRE CLOSING ARGUMENT
But in Tuesday's argument, the justices spent most of their time discussing Spisak's second argument -- that his trial lawyer had delivered such a poor closing argument in the penalty phase that he was effectively denied effective representation.
On that point, the justices were all over the map.
"Have you ever heard or read a defense summation that was more derogatory of the defendant than the summation here?" Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. asked Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray.
Cordray insisted that the trial lawyer had done the best he could with "the bed that was made by his client, who got on the stand for days on end and spewed his racist propaganda, made it clear that he was not only unrepentant but was triumphant."
Alito pressed the point, saying the lawyer told the jury that Spisak demanded no sympathy, and asked: "Isn't that exactly what he has to appeal for in order not to get a death verdict, sympathy based on mental illness, despite the horrific crimes that this person committed?"
Cordray disagreed, saying he considered the lawyer's speech to be part of a "coherent strategy" that was premised on telling the jury: "I can sense that you are not feeling sympathy for my client. Do what makes you a humane people, what makes us proud as a people, and do not give the death penalty to a person who is sick, demented, twisted, as my client has shown himself to be."
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg described the closing argument as "disjointed" and said, "it goes off on tangents that have nothing to do with the sentence. ... I mean, it really is quite a stream of consciousness."
But Ginsburg also asked Spisak's lawyer, Michael Benza of Chagrin Falls, Ohio: "Do you know of any case where ineffective assistance was found on the basis of a closing argument alone?"
Benza conceded he did not, but insisted that was only because Spisak's case was "such an outlier."
"I have been litigating capital cases since 1993. I have never seen a closing argument like this," Benza said.
A group of 20 law professors who teach trial advocacy filed an amicus brief supporting Spisak that urged the justices to declare that his trial lawyer's speech "was deficient to such a level that it constituted ineffective assistance of counsel."
But several justices seemed inclined to approve of the argument as a sound strategy.
As Justice Stephen Breyer described it: "It makes sense logically to say he has the worst defendant he has ever seen. He's murdered lots of people in cold blood. He gets up on the stand and says: ‘I'm going to kill a lot more.' He sounds totally bonkers."
Breyer said he interpreted the trial lawyer's strategy as recognizing that his insanity defense had failed, but nonetheless arguing to the jury, "We don't execute people who are crazy and this guy is crazy."
Justice Antonin Scalia went further, saying, "I thought it was a brilliant closing argument. ... Have you ever conducted a capital case in which the defendant takes the stand with a Hitler mustache and says he's glad for what he's done and he will do it again? ... This was an extraordinary trial, and it seems to me that the technique that counsel used to try to get mercy for this fellow was the best that could have been done."
In telephone interviews Tuesday afternoon, lawyers on both sides of the Abu-Jamal case expressed guarded optimism about the outcome in the Spisak case.
FACTS DIFFERENT ENOUGH?
Attorney Robert Bryan of San Francisco, the lead lawyer for Abu-Jamal, said he believes the Mills issue as it arose in Spisak's case is factually and procedurally different enough that the outcome will not dictate how Abu-Jamal's case should be decided.
But Deputy District Attorney Ronald Eisenberg, who attended the oral arguments, said he anticipates that the justices will reach the Mills issue and will find fault in the way the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals applied it in Spisak's case.
While most of the federal circuits have declined to extend Mills to cases in which there was a risk of juror confusion, Eisenberg said, the 6th Circuit did so in Spisak's case and the 3rd Circuit committed the same error in Abu-Jamal's case.
'PADILLA v. KENTUCKY'
In the first case argued Tuesday, Padilla v. Kentucky, a lawyer told his client, Jose Padilla, a permanent resident alien arrested for drug trafficking, that pleading guilty as part of a plea agreement would not expose him to deportation. That advice was flat wrong.
Padilla sued in 2004, claiming ineffective assistance that deprived him of his constitutional rights. But the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled that incorrect advice on matters that are collateral to the criminal case don't make out a case of ineffective assistance under the Supreme Court's Strickland v. Washington standard.
Most U.S. Supreme Court justices seemed wary of expanding the definition of ineffective assistance to include flawed advice on matters beyond the actual criminal case the lawyer is handling.
"We have to decide whether we are opening a Pandora's box here," said Scalia, who said flawed advice about the effect of a guilty plea on child custody could be another issue defendants would raise.
Breyer also said, "The world is filled with 42 billion circumstances" that could trigger ineffective-assistance claims for other reasons.
Stephen Kinnaird of Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker, arguing for Padilla, said deportation is "so severe and so material" that the court could limit its ruling to advice in that area. "The lawyer has the distinct duty to assess the advantages and disadvantages of the plea."
Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben told the court that a criminal defense lawyer does not have a constitutional duty to advise his client about immigration law, but if he or she does and does so incorrectly, "the lawyer has used his professional skills to undermine a personal decision that belongs to the defendant alone."
The Padilla case is being tracked by immigrant rights advocates who say thousands of immigrants have been put in jeopardy by poor legal representation and advice. "Every day, immigrants are advised to give up their rights and plead guilty to charges that subject them to lifetime exile," said Benita Jain, co-director of the Immigrant Defense Project.
Tony Mauro, the U.S. Supreme Court correspondent for The Legal Intelligencer affiliate The National Law Journal, contributed reporting to this article.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Legal Update on Mumia Abu-Jamal from Attorney Robert Bryan
Dear Friends:
October 10 was World Day Against the Death Penalty. I am in The Netherlands at the invitation of Amnesty International. On Friday I gave a lecture at a prestigious law school to a wonderful group of students on behalf of Mumia. Yesterday I spoke at the showing of In Prison My Whole Life, sponsored by Amnesty, concerning my client and the death penalty. Mumia is now a global symbol in the campaign against the death penalty.
I am presenting litigating the issue of the death penalty in the United States Supreme Court. Last year we won a new jury trial in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Philadelphia. The state has gone to to the Supreme Court seeking a reversal of that ruling and the execution of my client. We are presently litigating the matter. Next week the court will hear arguments in an older case from Ohio, Smith v. Spisak, which has a similar issue.
There is a new effort underway to destroy the support for Mumia, who has been on Pennsylvania's death row for nearly three decades. The government's purpose is to kill him. This is the most dangerous time for Mumia since his 1981 arrest. I am fighting for his life. The support of the movement in Germany is crucial to the fight to save and free him.
Der Spiegel magazine published an article on 24 August 2009 which contained misquotes, distortions, false facts, and outright lies. Under influence from the right wing, it was a clear effort to promote the government effort to kill Mumia. The reporter could not even get right the simple fact of where I live in San Francisco, writing stupidly that Pacific Heights is an "alternative area." It states that Mumia was a high school drop out, overlooking the fact that he finished, attended university, and now has two university degrees: a Bachelor of Arts from Goddard College; a Master of Arts from California State University. She falsely stated that Mumia was not working as a journalist at the time of his arrest. Her description of the homicide scene was wrong. In a transparent effort to destroy raising needed funds for the defense, the reporter lied in writing that one million dollars has been raised. In fact the defense has no money - we are broke and thus cannot do things needed for Mumia; the reporter was aware of this. She criticized Mumia because he must wait until a new jury trial to explain in court what happened at the time of the shooting.
This week Reporters Without Borders, headquartered in Paris, published a video interview regarding Mumia's case and the latest case developments. It is in English, French and German, and can be found at: http://www.rsf.org/spip.php?page=article&id_article=34689
Finally, last spring at the Akademie der Künste I announced that we would be issuing an online petition for Mumia. He and I decided to wait until this month for its release. It will be coming soon.
You in Germany have been wonderful in the outpouring of your concern for Mumia. At this crucial time your activism is needed more than ever.
With best wishes,
Robert R. Bryan
Lead counsel for Mumia Abu-Jamal
The Netherlands
October 10 was World Day Against the Death Penalty. I am in The Netherlands at the invitation of Amnesty International. On Friday I gave a lecture at a prestigious law school to a wonderful group of students on behalf of Mumia. Yesterday I spoke at the showing of In Prison My Whole Life, sponsored by Amnesty, concerning my client and the death penalty. Mumia is now a global symbol in the campaign against the death penalty.
I am presenting litigating the issue of the death penalty in the United States Supreme Court. Last year we won a new jury trial in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Philadelphia. The state has gone to to the Supreme Court seeking a reversal of that ruling and the execution of my client. We are presently litigating the matter. Next week the court will hear arguments in an older case from Ohio, Smith v. Spisak, which has a similar issue.
There is a new effort underway to destroy the support for Mumia, who has been on Pennsylvania's death row for nearly three decades. The government's purpose is to kill him. This is the most dangerous time for Mumia since his 1981 arrest. I am fighting for his life. The support of the movement in Germany is crucial to the fight to save and free him.
Der Spiegel magazine published an article on 24 August 2009 which contained misquotes, distortions, false facts, and outright lies. Under influence from the right wing, it was a clear effort to promote the government effort to kill Mumia. The reporter could not even get right the simple fact of where I live in San Francisco, writing stupidly that Pacific Heights is an "alternative area." It states that Mumia was a high school drop out, overlooking the fact that he finished, attended university, and now has two university degrees: a Bachelor of Arts from Goddard College; a Master of Arts from California State University. She falsely stated that Mumia was not working as a journalist at the time of his arrest. Her description of the homicide scene was wrong. In a transparent effort to destroy raising needed funds for the defense, the reporter lied in writing that one million dollars has been raised. In fact the defense has no money - we are broke and thus cannot do things needed for Mumia; the reporter was aware of this. She criticized Mumia because he must wait until a new jury trial to explain in court what happened at the time of the shooting.
This week Reporters Without Borders, headquartered in Paris, published a video interview regarding Mumia's case and the latest case developments. It is in English, French and German, and can be found at: http://www.rsf.org/spip.php?page=article&id_article=34689
Finally, last spring at the Akademie der Künste I announced that we would be issuing an online petition for Mumia. He and I decided to wait until this month for its release. It will be coming soon.
You in Germany have been wonderful in the outpouring of your concern for Mumia. At this crucial time your activism is needed more than ever.
With best wishes,
Robert R. Bryan
Lead counsel for Mumia Abu-Jamal
The Netherlands
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Dangerous news: US Supreme Court Might Reinstate Death penalty for Mumia
We have been saying that there is a strong possibility that the US Supreme Court will reinstate the Death Penalty for Mumia. This while the leading candidate running to replace Lynne Abraham as Attorney General is calling for Mumia's execution and a new hit piece film by Tigre Hill "The Barrel of a Gun" is scheduled to be released around December 9th, the 28th anniversary of Mumia's arrest and the beginning of the subsequent conspiracy to have him executed. Now this article. Please pay close attention and stay tuned for our messages.
Suzanne Ross, for the Free Mumia Abu-Jamal Coalition
This is most alarming news:
Ohio Death Penalty Case Might Determine Abu-Jamal's Fate
Shannon P. Duffy
The Legal Intelligencer
October 12, 2009
Lawyers for convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal will be watching closely on Tuesday when the U.S. Supreme Court takes up an Ohio death penalty case because its outcome may very well decide whether Abu-Jamal's death sentence will be reinstated.
In April, Abu-Jamal lost his final appeal seeking a new trial for the December 1981 murder of Philadelphia Police Officer Daniel Faulkner when the justices refused to take up the issue of whether blacks were unfairly excluded from the jury.
But, at the time, the justices took no action on a companion petition filed by the Philadelphia district attorney's office demanding reinstatement of Abu-Jamal's death sentence despite having discussed it weeks before.
Now it appears certain that the high court has decided to hold the Philadelphia prosecutors' petition in abeyance pending the outcome of Smith v. Spisak -- an Ohio case that raises strikingly similar issues to those in Abu-Jamal's case.
If the prosecutors in that case are successful and win reinstatement of the death sentence imposed on Frank G. Spisak, the justices may then see no need to take up Abu-Jamal's case.
Instead, at that point, it's likely that the justices would simply issue a one-page order in Abu-Jamal's case that would summarily reverse the decision by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and order the appellate court to reconsider whether Abu-Jamal's death sentence should be reinstated.
Why is Abu-Jamal's case so similar to Spisak's? Both were on death row for notorious murders, but both won rulings in federal court that granted them partial new trials limited to the penalty phase.
In both cases, the federal courts' decisions to overturn the death sentences hinged on Mills v. Maryland -- a 1988 U.S. Supreme Court decision that governs how juries should deliberate during the penalty phase of a capital trial.
The Mills ruling struck down a Maryland statute that said juries in capital cases must be unanimous on any aggravating or mitigating factor. Voting 5-4, the justices declared that unanimity was properly required for any aggravating factor, but that mitigating factors -- those that weigh against imposing a death sentence -- must be handled more liberally, with each juror free to find on his or her own.
Since then, Mills has proven to be a powerful tool for defense lawyers aiming to overturn death sentences in numerous other states.
The question now before the courts is whether Mills truly requires that death sentences in other states be overturned if the juries in those states might have been confused by faulty instructions or verdict forms and led to believe that mitigating factors require unanimity.
Perhaps even more important to the justices is a corollary question of federalism: Is it fair for the federal courts to overturn a state court's decision on how to interpret Mills by imposing its own interpretation that extends Mills beyond its original scope?
It's possible that the justices will provide the answers to those questions in Spisak's case that will be immediately applied to Abu-Jamal's case -- with Abu-Jamal and his lawyers forced to simply watch and wait until that happens.
Spisak, 57, was sentenced to death in 1983 for a killing spree at Cleveland State University after a monthlong trial that reportedly included testimony that he was a neo-Nazi and cross-dresser.
According to briefs in the case, Spisak killed Horace T. Rickerson, Timothy Sheehan and Brian Warford and also shot at John Hardaway and Coletta Dartt. Hardaway was shot seven times but survived and identified Spisak as the shooter.
After his arrest, Spisak confessed to all five shootings and declared that his actions were motivated by his hatred of gay people, blacks and Jews.
As Ohio prosecutors argued in their Supreme Court brief, Spisak "proudly testified at length as to his neo-Nazi beliefs and told the jury that those beliefs had motivated the murders."
In 2006, the 6th Circuit overturned Spisak's death sentence based on a Mills violation as well as findings that his lawyers were ineffective and had "demonized" Spisak during the trial.
The Supreme Court overturned the ruling and ordered the 6th Circuit to study the case again in light of two other decisions by the high court.
But the 6th Circuit in 2008 reinstated its prior decisions, finding they were correct.
Now the Supreme Court has taken the Spisak case up a second time to tackle the question of whether the 6th Circuit failed to give proper deference to the Ohio state courts "when it applied Mills v. Maryland to resolve ... questions that were not decided or addressed in Mills."
Abu-Jamal's lead lawyer, Robert R. Bryan of San Francisco, said in April that the issue in Spisak is "very similar" to the issue raised in the prosecutors' petition in Abu-Jamal's case.
"The question we've got," Bryan said at the time, "is whether we'll be left dangling in the wind until Spisak is decided."
In the prosecutor's petition in Abu-Jamal's case, Deputy District Attorney Ronald Eisenberg argued that the 3rd Circuit failed to give the proper deference to the rulings of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court which had addressed the Mills issue in 1995 and -- relying on a 3rd Circuit decision -- concluded that the Pennsylvania jury instructions did not run afoul of Mills.
But by the time Abu-Jamal's case made its way into the federal courts, the 3rd Circuit "had changed its mind," Eisenberg argued, with a series of decisions that said the Pennsylvania courts' analysis of Mills was not only wrong but unreasonable.
Eisenberg urged the justices to see a difference between Mills -- where the Maryland jury was specifically instructed that it had to be unanimous on mitigating factors -- and the situation in states like Pennsylvania, where the issue is much subtler and hinges on speculation by the federal courts that the jury might have been confused.
"The difficulty with the 3rd Circuit's 'risk of confusion' view is that Mills, quite simply, stated no such rule," Eisenberg argues.
Suzanne Ross, for the Free Mumia Abu-Jamal Coalition
This is most alarming news:
Ohio Death Penalty Case Might Determine Abu-Jamal's Fate
Shannon P. Duffy
The Legal Intelligencer
October 12, 2009
Lawyers for convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal will be watching closely on Tuesday when the U.S. Supreme Court takes up an Ohio death penalty case because its outcome may very well decide whether Abu-Jamal's death sentence will be reinstated.
In April, Abu-Jamal lost his final appeal seeking a new trial for the December 1981 murder of Philadelphia Police Officer Daniel Faulkner when the justices refused to take up the issue of whether blacks were unfairly excluded from the jury.
But, at the time, the justices took no action on a companion petition filed by the Philadelphia district attorney's office demanding reinstatement of Abu-Jamal's death sentence despite having discussed it weeks before.
Now it appears certain that the high court has decided to hold the Philadelphia prosecutors' petition in abeyance pending the outcome of Smith v. Spisak -- an Ohio case that raises strikingly similar issues to those in Abu-Jamal's case.
If the prosecutors in that case are successful and win reinstatement of the death sentence imposed on Frank G. Spisak, the justices may then see no need to take up Abu-Jamal's case.
Instead, at that point, it's likely that the justices would simply issue a one-page order in Abu-Jamal's case that would summarily reverse the decision by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and order the appellate court to reconsider whether Abu-Jamal's death sentence should be reinstated.
Why is Abu-Jamal's case so similar to Spisak's? Both were on death row for notorious murders, but both won rulings in federal court that granted them partial new trials limited to the penalty phase.
In both cases, the federal courts' decisions to overturn the death sentences hinged on Mills v. Maryland -- a 1988 U.S. Supreme Court decision that governs how juries should deliberate during the penalty phase of a capital trial.
The Mills ruling struck down a Maryland statute that said juries in capital cases must be unanimous on any aggravating or mitigating factor. Voting 5-4, the justices declared that unanimity was properly required for any aggravating factor, but that mitigating factors -- those that weigh against imposing a death sentence -- must be handled more liberally, with each juror free to find on his or her own.
Since then, Mills has proven to be a powerful tool for defense lawyers aiming to overturn death sentences in numerous other states.
The question now before the courts is whether Mills truly requires that death sentences in other states be overturned if the juries in those states might have been confused by faulty instructions or verdict forms and led to believe that mitigating factors require unanimity.
Perhaps even more important to the justices is a corollary question of federalism: Is it fair for the federal courts to overturn a state court's decision on how to interpret Mills by imposing its own interpretation that extends Mills beyond its original scope?
It's possible that the justices will provide the answers to those questions in Spisak's case that will be immediately applied to Abu-Jamal's case -- with Abu-Jamal and his lawyers forced to simply watch and wait until that happens.
Spisak, 57, was sentenced to death in 1983 for a killing spree at Cleveland State University after a monthlong trial that reportedly included testimony that he was a neo-Nazi and cross-dresser.
According to briefs in the case, Spisak killed Horace T. Rickerson, Timothy Sheehan and Brian Warford and also shot at John Hardaway and Coletta Dartt. Hardaway was shot seven times but survived and identified Spisak as the shooter.
After his arrest, Spisak confessed to all five shootings and declared that his actions were motivated by his hatred of gay people, blacks and Jews.
As Ohio prosecutors argued in their Supreme Court brief, Spisak "proudly testified at length as to his neo-Nazi beliefs and told the jury that those beliefs had motivated the murders."
In 2006, the 6th Circuit overturned Spisak's death sentence based on a Mills violation as well as findings that his lawyers were ineffective and had "demonized" Spisak during the trial.
The Supreme Court overturned the ruling and ordered the 6th Circuit to study the case again in light of two other decisions by the high court.
But the 6th Circuit in 2008 reinstated its prior decisions, finding they were correct.
Now the Supreme Court has taken the Spisak case up a second time to tackle the question of whether the 6th Circuit failed to give proper deference to the Ohio state courts "when it applied Mills v. Maryland to resolve ... questions that were not decided or addressed in Mills."
Abu-Jamal's lead lawyer, Robert R. Bryan of San Francisco, said in April that the issue in Spisak is "very similar" to the issue raised in the prosecutors' petition in Abu-Jamal's case.
"The question we've got," Bryan said at the time, "is whether we'll be left dangling in the wind until Spisak is decided."
In the prosecutor's petition in Abu-Jamal's case, Deputy District Attorney Ronald Eisenberg argued that the 3rd Circuit failed to give the proper deference to the rulings of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court which had addressed the Mills issue in 1995 and -- relying on a 3rd Circuit decision -- concluded that the Pennsylvania jury instructions did not run afoul of Mills.
But by the time Abu-Jamal's case made its way into the federal courts, the 3rd Circuit "had changed its mind," Eisenberg argued, with a series of decisions that said the Pennsylvania courts' analysis of Mills was not only wrong but unreasonable.
Eisenberg urged the justices to see a difference between Mills -- where the Maryland jury was specifically instructed that it had to be unanimous on mitigating factors -- and the situation in states like Pennsylvania, where the issue is much subtler and hinges on speculation by the federal courts that the jury might have been confused.
"The difficulty with the 3rd Circuit's 'risk of confusion' view is that Mills, quite simply, stated no such rule," Eisenberg argues.
Friday, October 09, 2009
10/12 PAM AFRICA on WURD-AM Philadelphia
UPDATE:
WURD-AM Philadelphia has been on fire discussing the very serious situation developing around the increased threats agains Mumia Abu-Jamal. Pam Africa will appear on WURD's Bill Anderson Show this coming Monday and it is definitely not to be missed!!
The Bill Anderson Radio Show
Monday, October 12
8:00-9:00 AM
WURD - www.900amwurd.com
PLEASE TUNE IN AND PASS THE WORD!!
WURD-AM Philadelphia has been on fire discussing the very serious situation developing around the increased threats agains Mumia Abu-Jamal. Pam Africa will appear on WURD's Bill Anderson Show this coming Monday and it is definitely not to be missed!!
The Bill Anderson Radio Show
Monday, October 12
8:00-9:00 AM
WURD - www.900amwurd.com
PLEASE TUNE IN AND PASS THE WORD!!
Thursday, October 08, 2009
URGENT! 10/17 EMERGENCY MTG FOR MUMIA!
INTERNATIONAL CONCERNED FAMILY AND FRIENDS OF MUMIA ABU-JAMAL IS CALLING FOR EVERYBODY TO COME TOGETHER NOW!
**** EMERGENCY MEETING ****
WE NEED YOU TO BE THERE AND ORGANIZE OTHERS TO ATTEND!!
OCTOBER 17, 2009
ABIDING TRUTH MINISTRIES
846 S. 57TH ST. (57TH & CHRISTIAN)
PHILADELPHIA, PA
12:00 - 3:00 PM
OCTOBER 17, 2009
ABIDING TRUTH MINISTRIES
846 S. 57TH ST. (57TH & CHRISTIAN)
PHILADELPHIA, PA
12:00 - 3:00 PM
******************
MUMIA IS UNDER ATTACK!
SUPREME COURT RULING COULD COME DOWN ANY DAY!
SETH WILLIAMS, DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR D.A., HAS PLEDGED TO CALL FOR THE EXECUTION OF MUMIA:
"From my review of the evidence, if there was a new sentencing hearing I would ask for the death penalty."
http://www.philly.com/dailynews/columnists/michael_smerconish/20090827_Michael_Smerconish__A_German_surrender__on_Mumia_.html
"THE BARREL OF A GUN" MUMIA LYNCH MOB FILM SLATED FOR RELEASE IN DECEMBER:
http://www.phillyimc.org/en/fantasies-joe-mcgill-%E2%80%94-response-trailer-barrel-gun
IN 1985 WILSON GOODE AND LEO BROOKS ACTED AS BLACK HIT MEN AGAINST MOVE
IN 2009 SETH WILLIAMS AND TIGRE HILL ARE ACTING AS BLACK HIT MEN AGAINST MUMIA
Y'ALL ALREADY KNOW THEY'VE RUN THIS GAME BEFORE, WE'VE GOT TO PLAN ACTIONS RIGHT NOW TO FIGHT BACK!!
DON'T BE MIA ON OCTOBER 17!!
CONTACT ICFFMAJ AT 215-476-8812
icffmaj@aol.com or info@freemumia.com
www.freemumia.com
http://abu-jamal-news.com/
Sunday, October 04, 2009
The Fantasies of Joe McGill - a response to the trailer for "The Barrel of A Gun"
From Freedom Archives:
by Michael Schiffmann | 10.02.2009
http://www.phillyimc.org/en/fantasies-joe-mcgill-response-trailer-barrel-gunhttp://www.phillyimc.org/en/fantasies-joe-mcgill-response-trailer-barrel-gun
The trailer for the new film about the Mumia Abu-Jamal/Daniel Faulkner case, titled The Barrel of a Gun has just been released. The title refers to a quote from Mao Zedong, that Abu-Jamal made as the 15 year old information officer of the Philadelphia branch of the Black Panther Party in response to the murder of BPP members Fred Hampton and Mark Clark by the Chicago police and the FBI in December 1969: “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”
In this new article, German author Michael Schiffmann confronts the film's pernicious title and explains why the scenario presented by prosecutor Joe McGill is ballistically impossible.
Read the full article at http://abu-jamal-news.com/article?name=German+Book+Reveals+New+Evidence
by Michael Schiffmann | 10.02.2009
http://www.phillyimc.org/en/fantasies-joe-mcgill-response-trailer-barrel-gunhttp://www.phillyimc.org/en/fantasies-joe-mcgill-response-trailer-barrel-gun
The trailer for the new film about the Mumia Abu-Jamal/Daniel Faulkner case, titled The Barrel of a Gun has just been released. The title refers to a quote from Mao Zedong, that Abu-Jamal made as the 15 year old information officer of the Philadelphia branch of the Black Panther Party in response to the murder of BPP members Fred Hampton and Mark Clark by the Chicago police and the FBI in December 1969: “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”
In this new article, German author Michael Schiffmann confronts the film's pernicious title and explains why the scenario presented by prosecutor Joe McGill is ballistically impossible.
Read the full article at http://abu-jamal-news.com/article?name=German+Book+Reveals+New+Evidence
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
National Writers Union/UAW Resolution passed in support of Mumia!
Sisters and Brothers,
We are very happy to announce that the National Writers Union, United Auto Workers Local 1981, has passed a resolution supporting the Civil Rights Investigation of the Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal. Take note, union organizers, community group activists, and church/mosque/synagogue attendees --- your group, too, can pass such a resolution!
Whereas award-winning, prolific writer and broadcast journalist Mumia Abu Jamal was accorded honorary membership in the National Writers Union in 1995 and he thereafter worked actively with the Philadelphia Chapter for many years;
Whereas the principle of a fair trial is a constitutional right;
Whereas those who support Mumia believe that he did not receive a fair trial in 1982 based on more than 20 well-documented legal issues;
Whereas extensive evidence of prosecutorial and judicial misconduct in Mumia's trial has surfaced that could have led to Mumia's acquittal (which was the basis on which Attorney General Holder used to overturn the conviction this spring of former Senator Stevens of Alaska);
Whereas Mumia is still on death row in Pennsylvania after 27 years and the Supreme Court this spring turned down a petition to review his request for a new trial;
Whereas the NAACP adopted a resolution at its 2009 convention to press Attorney General Holder to conduct a civil rights investigation of his case;
Hereby be it resolved that the NWU in solidarity with our honorary member Mumia Abu-Jamal endorse the NAACP resolution and sign the petition for a civil rights investigation of Mumia's case.
We are very happy to announce that the National Writers Union, United Auto Workers Local 1981, has passed a resolution supporting the Civil Rights Investigation of the Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal. Take note, union organizers, community group activists, and church/mosque/synagogue attendees --- your group, too, can pass such a resolution!
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Whereas award-winning, prolific writer and broadcast journalist Mumia Abu Jamal was accorded honorary membership in the National Writers Union in 1995 and he thereafter worked actively with the Philadelphia Chapter for many years;
Whereas the principle of a fair trial is a constitutional right;
Whereas those who support Mumia believe that he did not receive a fair trial in 1982 based on more than 20 well-documented legal issues;
Whereas extensive evidence of prosecutorial and judicial misconduct in Mumia's trial has surfaced that could have led to Mumia's acquittal (which was the basis on which Attorney General Holder used to overturn the conviction this spring of former Senator Stevens of Alaska);
Whereas Mumia is still on death row in Pennsylvania after 27 years and the Supreme Court this spring turned down a petition to review his request for a new trial;
Whereas the NAACP adopted a resolution at its 2009 convention to press Attorney General Holder to conduct a civil rights investigation of his case;
Hereby be it resolved that the NWU in solidarity with our honorary member Mumia Abu-Jamal endorse the NAACP resolution and sign the petition for a civil rights investigation of Mumia's case.
The Campaign for a Civil Rights Investigation of the Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal
Sponsored by the Brecht Forum and the Free Mumia Abu-Jamal Coalition (NYC)
September 14 -- 7:30 pm
The Brecht Forum
451 West Street (between Bank & Bethune)
Minimal contribution requested - Nobody turned away.
Refreshments!
Pam Africa and Free Mumia Coalition (NYC)
speak about the grassroots campaign.
Speakers:
Alton Maddox (Attorney at War)
Lynne Stewart (Representative of political prisoners and decades-long civil/human rights attorney)
Daniel Meyers (President, NYC National Lawyers Guild)
Help get the word out! Download the flyer here.
www.freemumia.com
The Brecht Forum
451 West Street (between Bank & Bethune)
Minimal contribution requested - Nobody turned away.
Refreshments!
Pam Africa and Free Mumia Coalition (NYC)
speak about the grassroots campaign.
Speakers:
Alton Maddox (Attorney at War)
Lynne Stewart (Representative of political prisoners and decades-long civil/human rights attorney)
Daniel Meyers (President, NYC National Lawyers Guild)
Help get the word out! Download the flyer here.
www.freemumia.com
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Pam Africa Speaks at PA NAACP State Conference
(thanks to Hans Bennett for the links!)
On Saturday, August 15, 2009, Pam Africa was invited to speak at the NAACP Pennsylvania state conference, and to address the PA chapters of the NAACP about further actions to support Mumia Abu Jamal, Troy Davis, and other political prisoners.
For more info, check out:
http://www.phillyimc.org/en/pam-africa-speaks-naacp-pa-state-conference-about-mumia-abu-jamal
http://freemumia.com/civilrights.html
On Saturday, August 15, 2009, Pam Africa was invited to speak at the NAACP Pennsylvania state conference, and to address the PA chapters of the NAACP about further actions to support Mumia Abu Jamal, Troy Davis, and other political prisoners.
For more info, check out:
http://www.phillyimc.org/en/pam-africa-speaks-naacp-pa-state-conference-about-mumia-abu-jamal
http://freemumia.com/civilrights.html
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Julian Bond Supports the Civil Rights Investigation on "Democracy Now"
TRANSCRIPT OF AMY GOODMAN’S QUESTION TO JULIAN BOND RE MUMIA, AND BOND’S RESPONSE
Democracy Now, July 20, 2009
AMY GOODMAN: Eric Holder, the new Attorney General, also addressed the NAACP. Now, the NAACP has just passed a resolution asking him to investigate the case of another man on death row, Mumia Abu-Jamal. What is your stand on that case? What is the NAACP doing?
JULIAN BOND: Well, we’re going to ask Attorney General Holder to look into this, as anyone who’s followed this case for a number of years know that similar doubts have been raised about him as were raised about Troy Davis. And he’s had trouble bringing these doubts before a tribunal that can say, you know, these things are true or they’re not true. And we think he needs that chance. We think he needs that chance before the state of Pennsylvania decides to snuff his life out.
We oppose the death penalty, and particularly so in these cases where innocence seems likely, seems possible. I mean, just think of the notion of killing someone and then finding out later, boy, we made a terrible mistake, I’m so sorry. I mean, that cannot hold. That cannot be done. So we’re trying to, not only with the Mumia case, but other cases, we expect to talk to General Holder and see if he won’t put the force of the US government behind them.
WRONGS IN CIVIL RIGHTS UNDERLYING ABU-JAMAL’S CONVICTION
By Linn Washington
During 1981,
However, investigations later revealed that police and prosecutors engaged in serious misconduct in each of those murder cases.
Two of those arrested in 1981 spent twenty-years in prison before newly discovered evidence exposed flawed confessions obtained by police. Another man spent 1,375-days on death row before his release, an ordeal that one judge described as a “Kafkaesque nightmare” due to illegal conduct mainly by police. A jury acquitted the teen arrested for one of the 1981 police killings citing lack of evidence.
Ironically, the one 1981 homicide arrest generating the most attention internationally is the one arrest authorities in
This is the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal – convicted of fatally shooting a
The conviction of death-row journalist Mumia Abu-Jamal is filled with serious violations of fundamental civil rights. Freedom from discrimination is a civil right, yet discriminatory actions by police, prosecutors and judges mare all aspects of the Abu-Jamal case.
The case against Abu-Jamal, cobbled from circumstantial evidence, constitutes a festering sore on
Violations comprising the injustice of Abu-Jamal’s conviction include the kinds of structural deficiencies that drive exonerations and official investigations nationwide: police fabricating evidence, multiple instances of prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of defense counsel plus judicial wrongdoing.
One of the most egregious violations is the public pronouncement by the judge presiding at Abu-Jamal’s 1982 trial that he was going to help prosecutors “fry the Nigger.”
That odious admission by Judge Albert Sabo oozing lack of impartiality and racial bigotry clearly violated Abu-Jamal’s constitutionally guaranteed right to a fair trial.
An essential pillar in a constitutionally fair trial, experts agree, is having an “impartial judge” who does not act as “either an assisting prosecutor or a thirteenth juror.”
Assertions by Abu-Jamal’s opponents that his obvious guilt negates any need for following fair trial procedures contradict long established law.
The Pa Supreme Court declared in a 1959 ruling that defendants are entitled “to all the safeguards of a fair trial…even if the evidence of guilt piles as high as
That fair trial right exists irrespective of whether judges or prosecutors are convinced of a defendant’s guilt, the Pa Supreme Court stated in that ruling issued when Abu-Jamal was four-years-old.
That 1959 ruling arose from a
Even some who feel Abu-Jamal could be guilty as charged also believe Abu-Jamal received an unfair trial.
Respected lawyer/journalist Stuart Taylor, in a 1996 article, asserted that Abu-Jamal “received an unfair trial” despite also contending that a “strong probably” existed that Abu-Jamal killed Officer Daniel Faulkner…when Jamal came to the aid of his brother who was being beaten by Faulkner during a traffic stop.
Echoing conclusions of other investigators,
Prosecutors contributed to undermining Abu-Jamal’s fair trial rights by withholding evidence of innocence from the defense and the jury during the 1982 trial. This suppression included withholding evidence of a third person at the crime scene other than Abu-Jamal and his brother. Abu-Jamal’s defense centered on the claim that Faulkner’s shooter fled – a contention consistent with eyewitness reports that Faulkner’s shooter fled.
Violations of fair trial procedures by prosecutors are a problem in Pa and nationwide. An October 2007 American Bar Association report chided top prosecutorial officials in
Incredibly, state and federal courts including the US Supreme Court have repeatedly dismissed the vile violations in Abu-Jamal’s case when denying his appeals for a new trial.
Dismissals in the Abu-Jamal case contradict those same courts citing chillingly similar violations when voiding over 200 Pa death penalty convictions since 1978.
The federal Third Circuit Court of Appeals, for example, has voided
Yet, in 2008, a 3rd Circuit panel dismissed Abu-Jamal’s jury bias claim by creating a new standard for proving that claim.
That new proof standard was far stiffer than that Circuit’s existing precedent, exceeding even jury bias proof standards utilized in a US Supreme Court ruling weeks earlier authored by Justice Samuel Alito, a former 3rd Circuit jurist.
The dissenting judge in that 3rd Circuit ruling – the first ever dissent in an Abu-Jamal case ruling – upbraided his panel colleagues for seizing Abu-Jamal’s case to change established procedures.
Adherence to precedent is supposedly a fundamental principle of the American legal system. Patterns of failing to follow precedent produces what is dubbed the “Abu-Jamal Exception” – the practice of judges craftily changing precedent to exclude extending Abu-Jamal the legal relief given to other defendants raising the same legal issues.
Documented violations in this closely watched case convince groups as diverse as Amnesty International and the national NAACP that Abu-Jamal is the victim of double standards of justice. The NAACP approved a resolution at its centennial convention in July 2009 calling on the US Department of Justice to investigate civil rights violations in the Abu-Jamal case.
The enormous attention given to the ‘whodunit’ aspects underlying Abu-Jamal’s contentious conviction easily obscures critical context regarding systemic violations by
One fallacious claim is that police did not frame Abu-Jamal. Evidence from the now proven improprieties in those three other high profile 1981 homicides refutes this claim.
The case of the 1981 arrest producing that wrongful death sentence provides a compelling example of
The judge presiding at the trial where Ferber sought compensation for his wrongful incarceration stated in his post-trial opinion that “a variety of
Common sense compels consideration of the conclusion that if
Persons rejecting evidence of police framing Abu-Jamal ignore a disturbing fact uncovered by investigative reporter Dave Lindorff, author of a book on the Abu-Jamal case. Lindorff documented that seventeen of the 35 police officers involved in the MAJ investigation were later indicted and/or disciplined for misconduct that included manufacturing evidence designed to frame suspects.
Federal investigations and findings by courts have repeatedly documented illegal practices by
In 1979, two years before Abu-Jamal’s arrest, the US Justice Department filed an unprecedented civil rights violation lawsuit against 21 top Philadelphia officials – including the city’s then Mayor – charging them with actively backing violent police brutality…abusive misconduct frequently utilizing fabricated evidence to discredit victims and defend their police assailants.
Claims presented at trial about Abu-Jamal’s alleged confession first arose during an investigation into his complaint of suffering police beatings on the day of his arrest – at the crime scene and inside a hospital emergency room.
During that brutality investigation, two officers suddenly remembered hearing Abu-Jamal confess at the hospital. This pair included the officer who brought Abu-Jamal from the crime scene to the hospital who filed a report three hours after Abu-Jamal’s arrest stating Abu-Jamal made “no comments.”
Authorities fired that officer, Gary Wakshul, three years after Abu-Jamal’s arrest. Police officials fired Wakshul for viciously beating a man, including a near fatal assault inside a hospital emergency room.
In 1978, three years before Abu-Jamal’s arrest, the Pa Supreme Court blasted
Courts – state and federal – have overturned many murder convictions obtained during Rendell’s tenure as District Attorney citing instances of misconduct by homicide prosecutors inclusive of withholding evidence of innocence and engaging in racially discriminatory jury selection practices.
The Pa Supreme Court, in a 1999 ruling involving “extensive and flagrant prosecutorial misconduct” released two reputed
The Pa Supreme released those two mob members directly from prison, one year after its 1998 Abu-Jamal case ruling where that Court rejected voluminous claims of prosecutorial misconduct during Abu-Jamal’s trial and his appeal proceedings.
Incidentally, five of the seven Court justices participating in that 1998 ruling against Abu-Jamal received substantial electoral financing and other support from
A February 2000 Amnesty International report on Abu-Jamal’s case expressed concern about the “political support” Pa justices receive from police organizations noting the prospect of “severe political backlash” against any justice challenging Abu-Jamal’s conviction.
Pa judicial ethics require judges to remove themselves from cases they handled while serving as government lawyers. Yet, a former Philadelphia DA-turned-Pa Supreme Court Justice – who’s received extensive police union backing – has repeatedly refused to remove himself from Abu-Jamal appeals.
Equal protection of laws is an essential aspect of civil rights. The Blacks Law Dictionary – cited as authority by judges – defines equal protection of the law in part as: “no person shall be denied the same protection of laws which is enjoyed by other persons in like circumstances…”
Pa Supreme Court rulings in 1988 and 1989 provide glaring evidence of equal protection violations.
In March 1988, the Pa Supreme Court issued a ruling granting a new trial to a Pa State Trooper charged with fatally shooting a woman inside a judge’s office. That Trooper shot the woman he accused of burglarizing his home during a court proceeding involving that burglary.
The Court ruled the Trooper did not receive a fair trial because the presiding judge made a single statement questioning the professional credentials of a defense witness. The Court deemed that single statement as offering an improper ‘opinion.’
However, one year later, the same Court found no fair trial fault in numerous opinion laden statements by Judge Sabo during Abu-Jamal’s trial – including Sabo assailing the professional competency of Abu-Jamal’s attorney in front of the jury.
Equal protection violations comprise a consistent thread in the trial and appellate court rejections of Abu-Jamal’s legal claims.
These violations include the U.S. Supreme Court in the early 1990s twice refusing to consider Abu-Jamal’s claim that prosecutors violated his First Amendment association rights with inflammatory references to his teenaged membership in the Black Panther Party.
Although Abu-Jamal had voluntarily left the BPP 12-years before his 1982 trial, prosecutors speciously argued his former BPP membership spurred his killing a cop.
The U.S. Supreme Court, months after rejecting Abu-Jamal’s first appeal, granted a new hearing to a murderer who challenged prosecutorial reference to his current membership in a violent white racist prison gang. Following the favorable ruling for the racist, Abu-Jamal unsuccessfully sought Supreme Court reconsideration of his association right claim citing that Court’s ruling in the white racist’s case.
Months after spurning Abu-Jamal a second time, the Supreme Court granted a new hearing to a white murderer challenging prosecutorial reference of his membership in a devil worshipping cult. When giving relief to the devil worshipper, the Supreme Court cited the precedence of its ruling in the racist’s case.
Equal protection of laws seemingly should have provided an ex-Black Panther with the same protection of laws as a white racist and white devil worshipper given the similarities of their appeal circumstances.
The failures of federal and state courts to correct the gross violations in Abu-Jamal’s case, compounding the illegal conduct of police and prosecutors, cries out for an investigation by the U.S. Justice Department requested by organizations and individuals concerned about America’s bedrock principal of equal justice under law.
It is true that courts enjoy wide discretion in interpreting law as those courts deemed appropriate.
However, the fact that state and federal courts have rejected every evidentiary issue and all but one procedural error issue presented in the Abu-Jamal case raises real questions about courts acting in accordance with the principle of equal-justice-under-law.
To accept the assertion that the Abu-Jamal case is one of open-&-shut guilt free of any error requires embracing scenarios that defy logic, law and the proven official misconduct in those other 1981
GET ON THE BUS FOR MUMIA! This Saturday!
People, get on board the next step of our relentless Campaign for a Civil Rights Investigation of the Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal!
This Saturday, August 15th, Pam Africa, leader of the worldwide movement to Free Mumia, is addressing the NAACP Pennsylvania State meeting. This is very significant as that state has been led by Jerry Mondesire, an individual who has historically been very hostile to Mumia and to Pam Africa and MOVE. With the recent support the national NAACP has given the call for a Civil Rights Investigation of Mumia's case, through both a resolution and a very strong statement by Chairman Julian Bond, even Mondesire is responding.
Saturday's meeting is being held at 9 AM at the Radisson Hotel in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. The Free Mumia Abu-Jamal Coalition will be supporting Pam Africa with our educational flyers and gorgeous signs, reaching out to the State membership and pressuring the leadership to carry out the mandate of the Resolution just passed by the National NAACP Convention.
Be there and help consolidate this new trajectory of Mumia's case! We leave midtown New York at 6:30am (yes, that early) and we'll be back by 6:30pm. Round-trip transportation to the front door of the Radisson is only $20. Book fast by calling 212-330-8029. Refreshments will be provided. Bring lunch, if you wish..
Free Mumia and all Political Prisoners!
This Saturday, August 15th, Pam Africa, leader of the worldwide movement to Free Mumia, is addressing the NAACP Pennsylvania State meeting. This is very significant as that state has been led by Jerry Mondesire, an individual who has historically been very hostile to Mumia and to Pam Africa and MOVE. With the recent support the national NAACP has given the call for a Civil Rights Investigation of Mumia's case, through both a resolution and a very strong statement by Chairman Julian Bond, even Mondesire is responding.
Saturday's meeting is being held at 9 AM at the Radisson Hotel in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. The Free Mumia Abu-Jamal Coalition will be supporting Pam Africa with our educational flyers and gorgeous signs, reaching out to the State membership and pressuring the leadership to carry out the mandate of the Resolution just passed by the National NAACP Convention.
Be there and help consolidate this new trajectory of Mumia's case! We leave midtown New York at 6:30am (yes, that early) and we'll be back by 6:30pm. Round-trip transportation to the front door of the Radisson is only $20. Book fast by calling 212-330-8029. Refreshments will be provided. Bring lunch, if you wish..
Free Mumia and all Political Prisoners!
NAACP calling for U.S. action on Mumia case
Written by Larry Miller, Philadelphia Tribune, July 13, 2009
The case of Mumia Abu Jamal surfaced again when earlier this month NAACP Chairman Julian Bond said the 100-year-old civil rights organization was asking Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate the case.
On a segment of Democracy Now, aired on July 20, Bond, speaking with moderator Amy Goodman and citing the case of Troy Davis, stated Holder should look into the case because over the years serious doubts have been raised over whether Abu Jamal received a fair trial.
"We're going to ask Attorney General Holder to look into this," Bond said during the broadcast. "As anyone who's followed this case for a number of years knows that similar doubts have been raised about him as were raised about Troy Davis. And he's had trouble bringing these doubts before a tribunal that can say, you know, these things are true or they're not true. And we think he needs that chance. We think he needs that chance before the state of Pennsylvania decides to snuff his life out."
Bond said the NAACP opposes the death penalty, and particularly so in cases where innocence seems possible.
"I mean, just think of the notion of killing someone and then finding out later, boy, we made a terrible mistake, I'm so sorry," Bond said. "I mean, that cannot hold. That cannot be done. So we're trying to, not only with the Mumia case, but other cases, we expect to talk to General Holder and see if he won't put the force of the U.S. government behind them."
But concern for Mumia doesn't stop there. The day before Bond's statement, former Rep. Cynthia McKinney sent a letter to Holder also requesting that the Justice Department conduct a civil rights investigation of the case.
"I am writing to ask for your personal and immediate intervention to put an end to a grave injustice. Anyone who has read the reports, as I have, including briefs and opinions of the courts, knows that Mumia Abu Jamal was tried and convicted amid sensationalism and hysteria that, at its core, constituted a racial frenzy," McKinney wrote. "Indicting words from the judge, himself, point to racism and prejudice even inside the courtroom. The `Batson Issue' should be of real concern to everyone interested in justice. Sadly, Mumia was convicted amid the very racial cowardice of which you, yourself, have spoken."
McKinney said the "imperative for a civil rights investigation is clear in Abu Jamal's case."
Pam Africa, a long-time supporter of Abu Jamal and coordinator of the International Concerned Family and Friends of Mumia Abu Jamal, said her colleagues have been trying since 2004 to get the Justice Department to look into the case.
"We were told that if we could show evidence of a consistent and on-going conspiracy to keep Mumia from getting a new trial, then they could look into it," she said. "Having Julian Bond push for this, getting Professor Charles Ogletree's involvement is just what's needed in getting the NAACP's resolution on this case. It's not just about Mumia; this covers Troy Davis, Marshall Eddie Conway and Reggie Clemons. Now is the time to keep the pressure up because Mumia doesn't have a chance without the people's pressure. There was no fair trial. There's going to be a massive movement on this because Mumia is innocent."
December 2008 marked the 27th anniversary of the death of police Officer Daniel Faulkner, allegedly by Abu Jamal, a fiery journalist-turned cab driver.
Since that tragic December night in 1981, the case has been mired in controversy, with accusations of racial discrimination during the trial process being raised almost from the beginning.
Since Abu Jamal's conviction, his defense attorneys have filed numerous appeals and his supporters have staged endless protests calling for his release from prison.
They say there is no doubt in their minds that Abu Jamal is innocent. They also contend that he didn't squeeze the trigger that ended Faulkner's life and that he didn't get a fair trial.
Maureen Faulkner, widow of the slain officer, has stated numerous times that she has no doubt in her mind that Abu Jamal murdered her husband.
"The bottom line is that there were eyewitnesses that saw what happened that night, and the evidence, the ballistics show that Mumia Abu Jamal murdered my husband," said Faulkner on an edition of WHYY's Radio Times. "He confessed in the emergency room, and several people heard him confess, saying `I shot the MF-er and I hope he dies' ... Priscilla Durham, she testified in the court in 1982 that she heard him, the security guard. This man confessed to murdering my husband."
This year of 2009 could well mark the beginning of the next round of protests.
District Attorney Lynne Abraham is calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to reinstate Abu Jamal's death sentence and both the DA's office and Abu Jamal's vocal supporters are awaiting a decision.
In March 2008, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit upheld the 1982 murder conviction. The court also upheld a 2001 ruling that tossed out the death penalty because the jury was improperly instructed and agreed with a lower court ruling that Abu Jamal would have to receive a new penalty hearing before he could be executed.
If the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office decides not to grant a death penalty hearing, Abu Jamal would automatically be sentenced to life in prison, an apparent victory, but not as far as Abu Jamal's supporters are concerned.
"Life in prison is not a victory for Mumia, not as far as we're concerned," Africa said.
On Nov. 18, 2008, the District Attorney's Office filed papers asking the Supreme Court to review the lower court's decision.
Hilary Shelton, director, NAACP Washington Bureau and senior vice president for Advocacy and Policy, said there is enough controversy and conflicting evidence in the case to warrant a new trial for Abu Jamal.
"The formal position of the NAACP on this case is that Abu Jamal deserves a new trial," Shelton said. "There's enough contradictory evidence and conflicting statements to call for this. We're also calling for his removal from death row. There's no reason to keep him under that lock up."
Shelton said in the past, the civil rights organization has been asking the United States Attorney General and the Justice Department to review the case.
During past NAACP national conventions and board meetings, resolutions were passed regarding this issue. Shelton said it was the hope of the NAACP that Holder would move forward with their request.
"We spoke with him about Abu Jamal soon after his confirmation and he was familiar with the case," Shelton said. "Our president Benjamin Jealous has also expressed his concerns and mentioned it during our last convention, along with the racial disparity of the death penalty. We do recognize the discrimination regarding this. Abu Jamal deserves a new trial and we fully support this along with the Justice Department's efforts in this matter."
The case of Mumia Abu Jamal surfaced again when earlier this month NAACP Chairman Julian Bond said the 100-year-old civil rights organization was asking Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate the case.
On a segment of Democracy Now, aired on July 20, Bond, speaking with moderator Amy Goodman and citing the case of Troy Davis, stated Holder should look into the case because over the years serious doubts have been raised over whether Abu Jamal received a fair trial.
"We're going to ask Attorney General Holder to look into this," Bond said during the broadcast. "As anyone who's followed this case for a number of years knows that similar doubts have been raised about him as were raised about Troy Davis. And he's had trouble bringing these doubts before a tribunal that can say, you know, these things are true or they're not true. And we think he needs that chance. We think he needs that chance before the state of Pennsylvania decides to snuff his life out."
Bond said the NAACP opposes the death penalty, and particularly so in cases where innocence seems possible.
"I mean, just think of the notion of killing someone and then finding out later, boy, we made a terrible mistake, I'm so sorry," Bond said. "I mean, that cannot hold. That cannot be done. So we're trying to, not only with the Mumia case, but other cases, we expect to talk to General Holder and see if he won't put the force of the U.S. government behind them."
But concern for Mumia doesn't stop there. The day before Bond's statement, former Rep. Cynthia McKinney sent a letter to Holder also requesting that the Justice Department conduct a civil rights investigation of the case.
"I am writing to ask for your personal and immediate intervention to put an end to a grave injustice. Anyone who has read the reports, as I have, including briefs and opinions of the courts, knows that Mumia Abu Jamal was tried and convicted amid sensationalism and hysteria that, at its core, constituted a racial frenzy," McKinney wrote. "Indicting words from the judge, himself, point to racism and prejudice even inside the courtroom. The `Batson Issue' should be of real concern to everyone interested in justice. Sadly, Mumia was convicted amid the very racial cowardice of which you, yourself, have spoken."
McKinney said the "imperative for a civil rights investigation is clear in Abu Jamal's case."
Pam Africa, a long-time supporter of Abu Jamal and coordinator of the International Concerned Family and Friends of Mumia Abu Jamal, said her colleagues have been trying since 2004 to get the Justice Department to look into the case.
"We were told that if we could show evidence of a consistent and on-going conspiracy to keep Mumia from getting a new trial, then they could look into it," she said. "Having Julian Bond push for this, getting Professor Charles Ogletree's involvement is just what's needed in getting the NAACP's resolution on this case. It's not just about Mumia; this covers Troy Davis, Marshall Eddie Conway and Reggie Clemons. Now is the time to keep the pressure up because Mumia doesn't have a chance without the people's pressure. There was no fair trial. There's going to be a massive movement on this because Mumia is innocent."
December 2008 marked the 27th anniversary of the death of police Officer Daniel Faulkner, allegedly by Abu Jamal, a fiery journalist-turned cab driver.
Since that tragic December night in 1981, the case has been mired in controversy, with accusations of racial discrimination during the trial process being raised almost from the beginning.
Since Abu Jamal's conviction, his defense attorneys have filed numerous appeals and his supporters have staged endless protests calling for his release from prison.
They say there is no doubt in their minds that Abu Jamal is innocent. They also contend that he didn't squeeze the trigger that ended Faulkner's life and that he didn't get a fair trial.
Maureen Faulkner, widow of the slain officer, has stated numerous times that she has no doubt in her mind that Abu Jamal murdered her husband.
"The bottom line is that there were eyewitnesses that saw what happened that night, and the evidence, the ballistics show that Mumia Abu Jamal murdered my husband," said Faulkner on an edition of WHYY's Radio Times. "He confessed in the emergency room, and several people heard him confess, saying `I shot the MF-er and I hope he dies' ... Priscilla Durham, she testified in the court in 1982 that she heard him, the security guard. This man confessed to murdering my husband."
This year of 2009 could well mark the beginning of the next round of protests.
District Attorney Lynne Abraham is calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to reinstate Abu Jamal's death sentence and both the DA's office and Abu Jamal's vocal supporters are awaiting a decision.
In March 2008, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit upheld the 1982 murder conviction. The court also upheld a 2001 ruling that tossed out the death penalty because the jury was improperly instructed and agreed with a lower court ruling that Abu Jamal would have to receive a new penalty hearing before he could be executed.
If the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office decides not to grant a death penalty hearing, Abu Jamal would automatically be sentenced to life in prison, an apparent victory, but not as far as Abu Jamal's supporters are concerned.
"Life in prison is not a victory for Mumia, not as far as we're concerned," Africa said.
On Nov. 18, 2008, the District Attorney's Office filed papers asking the Supreme Court to review the lower court's decision.
Hilary Shelton, director, NAACP Washington Bureau and senior vice president for Advocacy and Policy, said there is enough controversy and conflicting evidence in the case to warrant a new trial for Abu Jamal.
"The formal position of the NAACP on this case is that Abu Jamal deserves a new trial," Shelton said. "There's enough contradictory evidence and conflicting statements to call for this. We're also calling for his removal from death row. There's no reason to keep him under that lock up."
Shelton said in the past, the civil rights organization has been asking the United States Attorney General and the Justice Department to review the case.
During past NAACP national conventions and board meetings, resolutions were passed regarding this issue. Shelton said it was the hope of the NAACP that Holder would move forward with their request.
"We spoke with him about Abu Jamal soon after his confirmation and he was familiar with the case," Shelton said. "Our president Benjamin Jealous has also expressed his concerns and mentioned it during our last convention, along with the racial disparity of the death penalty. We do recognize the discrimination regarding this. Abu Jamal deserves a new trial and we fully support this along with the Justice Department's efforts in this matter."
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Radio Blast for the MOVE 9
ONA MOVE, Everybody! Thanks to the support of radio host nationally and internationally, we have arranged numerous radio programs for The MOVE 9 to call into around August 8th. Some programs internationally (Spain, New Zealand, etc) they are not able to call into but the host will broadcast info about The MOVE 9 anyway.
Below is a list of programs that The MOVE 9 will be calling into. I have included the web sites for these programs that you can access them over the internet if you are not in the area. We also hope that you will flood local radio programs with calls about The MOVE 9 and flood local newspapers with letters to the editor as well. Thanks for all of your support.
Ramona
Barcelona Spain (www.radiobronka.info/escuchar) 6am (est) Sat. 8/8
Hamilton New Zealand (www.communityradio.co.nz) 9pm (est) Sun. 8/9
Below is a list of programs that The MOVE 9 will be calling into. I have included the web sites for these programs that you can access them over the internet if you are not in the area. We also hope that you will flood local radio programs with calls about The MOVE 9 and flood local newspapers with letters to the editor as well. Thanks for all of your support.
Ramona
- Thursday, 7/30 8:00pm (est)/ WBAI 99.5FM www.wbai.org / Sally O'Brien-New York, NY.
- Sunday, 8/2, 1:00pm (est)/ Uhuru radio www.uhururadio.com / Chimurenga- Phila., PA.
- Monday, 8/3 8:05am (est)/ WURD 900AM www.900wurd.com/ Bill Anderson- Phila., PA.
- Monday, 8/3 5:00pm (est)/ WHPK 88.5FM www.whpk.org / Zarakyah Ahmadiel- Chicago, IL.
- Tuesday, 8/4 6:00pm (est)/ www.blogtalkradio.com/4justicenow /Mary Ellen Digiacomo
- Tuesday, 8/4 11:00pm (est)/ KPFK 90.7FM www.kpfa.org/ Dedon Carr-Los Angeles, CA.
- Wednesday, 8/5 12:00pm (est)/ CFRU 93.3FM www.cfru.ca/ Matt Soltys- Guelph, ON. Canada
- Wednesday, 8/5 1:00pm (est)/ WURD 900AM www.900amwurd.com / Reggie Bryant-Phila., PA.
- Thursday, 8/6 11:00am (est)/ WPFW 89.3FM www.wpfw.org / Rhyme Katkhouda-Washington, DC.
- Friday, 8/7 11:00pm (est)/ Wandas Picks wandaspicks.asmnetwork.org /Wanda Sabir
- Friday, 8/7 (est)/ KFAI 90.3 (Mnpls.) 106.7FM (St. Paul) www.kfai.org / Lydia Howell-Minneapolis, MN.
- Friday, 8/7 6:00pm (est)/ WRFG www.wrfg.com /Njere Alghanee-Atlanta, GA.
- Friday, 8/7 8:00pm (est)/ WLTH 1370AM www.wlth1370am.com / Ron Muhammad-Gary, IN.
- Saturday, 8/8 11:30am (est)/ KCBLR www.kcblr.org / Shiriki Unganisha-Kansas City, MO.
- Saturday, 8/8 2:00pm (est)/ WURD 900AM www.900amwurd.com / Norm Bond
- Monday, 8/10 9:30pm (est) KBOO 90.7FM www.kboo.com / Ruth Kovacs-Portland, OR.
Barcelona Spain (www.radiobronka.info/escuchar) 6am (est) Sat. 8/8
Hamilton New Zealand (www.communityradio.co.nz) 9pm (est) Sun. 8/9
TRANSCRIPT OF AMY GOODMAN'S QUESTION TO JULIAN BOND RE MUMIA, AND BOND'S RESPONSE
Democracy Now
July 20, 2009
AMY GOODMAN: Eric Holder, the new Attorney General, also addressed the NAACP. Now, the NAACP has just passed a resolution asking him to investigate the case of another man on death row, Mumia Abu-Jamal. What is your stand on that case? What is the NAACP doing?
JULIAN BOND: Well, we're going to ask Attorney General Holder to look into this, as anyone who's followed this case for a number of years know that similar doubts have been raised about him as were raised about Troy Davis. And he's had trouble bringing these doubts before a tribunal that can say, you know, these things are true or they're not true. And we think he needs that chance. We think he needs that chance before the state of Pennsylvania decides to snuff his life out.
We oppose the death penalty, and particularly so in these cases where innocence seems likely, seems possible. I mean, just think of the notion of killing someone and then finding out later, boy, we made a terrible mistake, I'm so sorry. I mean, that cannot hold. That cannot be done. So we're trying to, not only with the Mumia case, but other cases, we expect to talk to General Holder and see if he won't put the force of the US government behind them.
July 20, 2009
AMY GOODMAN: Eric Holder, the new Attorney General, also addressed the NAACP. Now, the NAACP has just passed a resolution asking him to investigate the case of another man on death row, Mumia Abu-Jamal. What is your stand on that case? What is the NAACP doing?
JULIAN BOND: Well, we're going to ask Attorney General Holder to look into this, as anyone who's followed this case for a number of years know that similar doubts have been raised about him as were raised about Troy Davis. And he's had trouble bringing these doubts before a tribunal that can say, you know, these things are true or they're not true. And we think he needs that chance. We think he needs that chance before the state of Pennsylvania decides to snuff his life out.
We oppose the death penalty, and particularly so in these cases where innocence seems likely, seems possible. I mean, just think of the notion of killing someone and then finding out later, boy, we made a terrible mistake, I'm so sorry. I mean, that cannot hold. That cannot be done. So we're trying to, not only with the Mumia case, but other cases, we expect to talk to General Holder and see if he won't put the force of the US government behind them.
Monday, July 06, 2009
DONATE in this CRITICAL TIME for MUMIA!
At this Critical Moment, where all immediate legal routes are pending, the movement for Mumia's freedom enters a campaign for a civil rights investigation into Mumia's case. This campaign is crucial in raising awareness of Mumia's case and in battling for Mumia's ultimate liberation.
We are currently urgently attempting to cover expenses for this campaign, which includes funds for buses, production of materials, merchandise, flyers, website design and development, just to name a few.
To make an online donation to contribute to fund this urgent and very important campaign, please visit our website: www.freemumia.com. Here you will find "Donate Now" options which will easily direct you to make a donation.
THANK YOU!
FREE MUMIA AND ALL POLITICAL PRISONERS
We are currently urgently attempting to cover expenses for this campaign, which includes funds for buses, production of materials, merchandise, flyers, website design and development, just to name a few.
To make an online donation to contribute to fund this urgent and very important campaign, please visit our website: www.freemumia.com. Here you will find "Donate Now" options which will easily direct you to make a donation.
THANK YOU!
FREE MUMIA AND ALL POLITICAL PRISONERS
Friday, June 26, 2009
WHAT YOU CAN DO to join the campaign to ensure Mumia his civil rights!
THE CAMPAIGN FOR A CIVIL RIGHTS INVESTIGATION OF THE CASE OF MUMIA ABU-JAMAL
Now that the US Supreme Court has ruled that Mumia will not be granted a new trial or even a hearing on issues related to guilt or innocence, we have decided to launch a campaign to demand that Attorney General Eric Holder and the Justice Department conduct a civil rights investigation. Specifically, we are asking Holder and the Justice Department to assess the suppression of evidence that could have led to Mumia's acquittal, as well as the other egregious examples of prosecutorial and judicial misconduct in the 27- year court process.
The four currently planned components of this campaign are:
Now that the US Supreme Court has ruled that Mumia will not be granted a new trial or even a hearing on issues related to guilt or innocence, we have decided to launch a campaign to demand that Attorney General Eric Holder and the Justice Department conduct a civil rights investigation. Specifically, we are asking Holder and the Justice Department to assess the suppression of evidence that could have led to Mumia's acquittal, as well as the other egregious examples of prosecutorial and judicial misconduct in the 27- year court process.
The four currently planned components of this campaign are:
- A letter writing campaign to Eric Holder.
- A focus on getting the NAACP to actively support this campaign in line with its unfulfilled promise in its 2004 resolution when it "reiterated its support of the international movement for a new and fair trial for Mumia Abu-Jamal." WE WILL BE AT THE HILTON HOTEL IN NYC ON MONDAY, JULY 13 WHEN ERIC HOLDER WILL BE ADDRESSING THE CONVENTION.
- A day of lobbying of congressional representatives to support a civil rights investigation (letters are being sent and calls are being made to them to request appointments) on WEDNESDAY, JULY 22.
- A press conference is being scheduled for mid-September in Washington, DC. Details will be announced.
- Sign the letter to attorney general Eric Holder online or download and mail to the FMAJC address as listed on the letter.
- Contact local NAACP chapters, and ask them to join us at the NAACP NATIONAL CONVENTION IN NYC ON MONDAY, JULY 13TH, to call on the organization to actively support this campaign
- Get your local congressional representative to endorse the campaign, to write his/her own letter or just sign onto the letter we are circulating. Let us know about the congressional representatives you are contacting by e-mailing us at freemumia@freemumia.com or calling us at (212) 330-8029. JOIN US IN LOBBYING DAY ON WEDNESDAY, JUNE 22ND. We are providing a free bus from NYC, leaving at 5 am and returning by 10 pm. (If you need housing for the night before, let us know by calling or e-mailing to above contacts)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)