According
to Mumia, he was driving a cab through a rundown district
of bars in Philadelphia, when he saw his younger brother,
William Cook, being beaten by police officer Daniel Faulkner.
Authorities acknowledge the fact that Faulkner was hitting
Cook with a flashlight, but say Cook struck the officer first,
after being stopped for going the wrong way on a one-way street.
Prosecutors say Mumia shot Faulkner in the back, then the
officer returned fire and wounded Mumia in the midsection,
and then Mumia stood over the officer and shot him in the
head.
Mumia's supporters believe that the real killer of police
officer, David Faulkner escaped the night of the shooting,
and Mumia was set up because of his past involvement with
the Black Panther Party in the 60's.
|
|
1. Was it unreasonable for the state
courts to deny Mumia a new trial when his lawyer admitted
he did no investigation and talked to no witnesses?
2. Was it unreasonable for the state courts to deny Mumia a
new trial when 3 witnesses claimed they were harassed by
the police into changing their account of what they observed
and one admitted to testifying falsely?
3.
Was it unreasonable for the state courts to deny Mumia a new
trial when the district attorney's office admitted to removing
10 qualified African-American jurors?
4.
Was it unreasonable for the state courts to deny Mumia a new
trial when the one witness who reported that Mumia made no
comments on the night he was alleged to have confessed was prevented
from testifying by the false report that he was unavailable?
5.
Was it unreasonable for the state courts to deny Mumia a new
hearing on sentencing when the district attorney introduced
evidence of Mumia's political statements and associations 12
years earlier?
|
|
*
In an unrelated proceeding, six former Philadelphia District
Attorneys swore under oath that no accused could receive
a fair trial in Sabo's court. *
* A medical examiner's report states that Faulkner's wounds
were made by a .44-cal gun, but Mumia had a .38. This
key evidence was withheld from Mumia and his defense in
his 1982 trial. Moreover, a weapons expert found it incredible
that the police at the scene of the shooting failed to
test Jamal's gun to see if it had been recently fired
or to test his hands to see if he had fired a weapon.
*
|
Flaws
in Mumia's trial (According to Leonard Weinglass' book, Race
For Justice) include:
Trial Errors
I. The Commonwealth withheld materially
favorable evidence from the defense, and knowingly used false
evidence. Evidence withheld and false evidence include the following:
(1) statements by an eyewitness, indicating that another individual,
not Mumia, was the shooter, that the actual shooter fled the scene,
and that a critical prosecution witness was actually not present
at the scene
(2) evidence of the failure of a prosecution eyewitness to identify
Mumia in a photo array
(3) the favorable results of a polygraph examination administered
to an eyewitness called by the defense which corroborated the
claim that the actual shooter fled the scene
(4) extensive police files concerning Mumia's political activities
and affiliations which expose law enforcement's deep-seated bias
against him and show that Mumia engaged in no criminal conduct
during the years he was closely surveilled
(5) evidence of intimidation, special deals and favors, and coercion
which was applied to numerous witnesses, causing one eyewitness
to flee the jurisdiction, causing Cynthia White to give false
testimony, causing two eyewitnesses to retract their claim that
they saw the shooter flee, and causing a police officer witness
to take an unauthorized vacation in order to prevent his availability
at the trial; and...
(6) evidence of incompetency in the Medical Examiner's autopsy
report.
MORE
DETAILS on (1) through (6), listed above
II.
The court deprived Mumia of his fundamental right to present a defense
in the following ways:
(1) Mumia was effectively barred from presenting crucial evidence
that he had not made any incriminatory statements. Consequently, the
prosecution's claim that Mumia had confessed to the shooting of Officer
Faulkner remained unrebutted.
(2) Mumia was barred from examining Veronica Jones and showing that
prosecution witness Cynthia White--perhaps the most critical eyewitness
for the prosecution--was coaxed and coerced to testify.
(3) Mumia was prevented from showing that another prosecution witness
was susceptible to police pressure to change his account of events
because he was on probation and because of prior drunk driving convictions.
(4) Because of his indigence (poverty) and the court's unwillingness
to authorize funding for investigation and expert witnesses, Mumia
was unable to present expert testimony which would have established
that the prosecution's theories were false.
MORE
DETAILS on (1) through (4), listed above
III. The court impermissibly held two in camera
(in judge's chambers; in private) conferences outside Mumia's presence,
at a time when Mumia's pro se (representing oneself in a case
rather than being represented by an attorney) status was still intact,
wherein Mumia's pro se status was discussed, an African-American
juror selected by Mumia was removed, a question of juror taint was
explored, and the admissibility of certain police officer testimony
was considered.
IV. The conflicts between Mumia and his court-appointed attorney were
so pervasive, divisive, and intense that his right to effective assistance
of counsel must be presumed to have been violated; and, further, that
these conflicts in fact led to a constituionally inadequate defense.
V. The court prematurely and unjustifiably stripped Mumia of his right
to proceed as his own attorney, and instead imposed upon him a constituionally
ineffective attorney.
VI. The court unjustifiably banished Mumia on numerous occasions from
the trial proceedings, thereby violating his right to self-representation,
his right to assist in his own defense, and his right to confront
the prosecution's witnesses.
VII. The prosecutor's guilt-phase closing argument exceeded the bounds
of propriety and violated Mumia's right to due process.
VIII. The court impermissibly responded to a juror's inquiry, which
ultimately led to that juror's removal, without notifying the defense
of that inquiry.
IX. New evidence establishes that intentional racial discrimination
infected the selection of the jury. MORE
DETAILS
X. The jury pool from which the jury was selected was
not a product of a random cross-section of the community.
Sentencing Errors
XII. The Pennsylvania death penalty is unconstitutional
because it is applied disparately, unequally, arbitrarily, and freakishly.
(See The Philadelphia Story)
XIII. The sentencing verdict form created a substantial probability
that jurors believed that unanimity was required to find a mitigating
circumstance.
XIV. The prosecution's summation in the penalty phase diminished the
jury's responsibilty in determining whether death was an appropriate
sentence, burdened the defendant's right to silence, and exploited
the defendant's difficulties with the court and his own attorney over
his pro se status.
XVI. The prosecution's use of and argument from evidence of Mumia's
irrelevant political past and abstract ideas violated Mumia's constitutional
rights.
XVII. The jury was not advised that a sentence of life carried with
it no possibility of parole, violating Mumia's Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendment rights.
XVIII. The ineffective assistance of Mumia's appellate counsel prevented
appellate review of meritorious issues based on the record.
XIX. The cumulative impact of the above errors deprived Mumia of due
process.
|
|
"If
you look today at the movement to save Mumia Abu-Jamal's life,
what do you find? You find there are many people who believe
that he is totally and completely innocent, that he is in prison
because he is an ex-Black Panther, because he is a MOVE supporter,
because of the racism of this country. There are plenty of people
who believe just that. But there are others who know about what
went on in Judge Sabo's courtroom. And they look at how unfair
that trial was, and they know about how the police pressured
the witnesses against Mumia and they know as time has gone on
how almost all of those witnesses have recanted. And they look
at a trial like that and they say, we don't know whether he
is guilty or innocent but we know that was an unfair trial and
a trial that is so unfair can't prove anything. You shouldn't
even take someone's drivers license away in a trial like that,
let alone put him on death row. And then there are those who
simply say the death penalty is wrong and that this killing
has got to stop."
-
Robert Meeropol, son of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg
|
|
"There
is one powerful reason why the judicial system should not permit
the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal. The evidence is now overwhelming
that there have been deadly errors made in sending prisoners
to the death chamber. Again and again, it has turned out that
prisoners pronounced guilty and sentenced to death have proved
later to be innocent. In the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal, the evidence
is conflicting, and there is certainly more than a reasonable
doubt of his guilt. The history of executions in this country
shows the system biased against poor people, people of color,
and political activists. Mumia Abu-Jamal fits all three categories.
To allow Mumia Abu-Jamal to die at the hands of the judicial
system would be a terrible commentary on a system that claims
to dispense 'equal justice before the law.' The whole world
is watching to see if our country will live up to that claim."
-
Howard Zinn, historian
|
Trial
Transcripts:
12/21/81
2/22/82
3/18/82
more
to come...
|
| |
|
