Monday, April 02, 2007

Mumia Abu-Jamal Oral Arguments Set For May 17

Pam Africa Calls for Mass-Demonstration in Philadelphia, and Holding
Corporate Media Accountable

by Hans Bennett, Dissent Voice
April 2, 2007

On May 17, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments in the
case of internationally renowned black death-row journalist Mumia Abu-Jamal.
The court will consider four different issues that it has already certified
for appeal. It will then decide to either grant a new trial, affirm the life
sentence, or re-instate the death sentence.

Immediately after this date was announced last week, supporters of Abu-Jamal
around the world began mobilizing to support Abu-Jamal at the hearings.
Explaining the urgency, Pam Africa (coordinator of Abu-Jamal's support
network) says that "Mumia can still be executed. Further, since the Supreme
Court is unlikely to hear Mumia's case, this is realistically his last
chance to get a new trial. As the history of his case shows, we need public
pressure to ensure the court's fairness."

"We're asking people to come to Philadelphia and show that the whole world
is watching these oral arguments," said Africa. "I believe Mumia is innocent
and am personally calling for his immediate release," Africa said. "However,
I'll work with anyone supporting a fair trial. By demanding a new trial, we
can work with those who know the trial was rotten but are unsure of Mumia's
innocence."

Abu-Jamal's attorney, Robert R. Bryan doubts that his client will appear in
court because of a rule that the defendant is not brought in for oral
arguments. Africa is upset about this rule because she feels that
Abu-Jamal's presence will help to ensure fairness. She asks, "These people
are arguing about his life, and he's not allowed to be there to make sure
everything is done right?"

Africa is also concerned about the limited time given for the presentation
of oral arguments. While the 3rd Circuit Court has granted 45 minutes total,
Abu-Jamal's attorney is arguing for at least an hour. Africa argues that
"in order to argue this case, you need much more time than that."

A New Trial?

In 1982, Abu-Jamal was convicted of killing white Philadelphia police
officer Daniel Faulkner in a trial that Amnesty International has declared a
"violation of minimum international standards that govern fair trial
procedures and the use of the death penalty."

Calling for a new trial, supporters around the world feel that the original
one was tainted by racism, prosecutorial and judicial misconduct, coerced
witnesses, suppressed evidence, and a denial of Mumia's constitutional right
to represent himself.

His case has attracted activists around the world organizing against racism,
poverty, corporate media censorship, mass incarceration, political
repression, and the death penalty.

Activist Noam Chomsky argues, "Mumia's case is symbolic of something much
broader... The US prison system is simply class and race war... Mumia and
other prisoners are the kind of people that get assassinated by what's
called 'social cleansing' in US client states like Colombia."

Still on Death Row

In December 2001, Federal District Court Judge William Yohn affirmed
Abu-Jamal's guilt but overturned the death sentence. Citing the 1988 Mills
v. Maryland precedent, Yohn ruled that sentencing forms used by jurors and
Judge Sabo's instructions to the jury were confusing. Subsequently, jurors
mistakenly believed that they had to unanimously agree on any mitigating
circumstances in order to be considered as weighing against a death
sentence.

Mumia's case is now in the federal Third Circuit Court of Appeals. DA Lynne
Abraham is appealing the death penalty ruling while Mumia is appealing the
guilty verdict.

If the penalty ruling is overturned, a new execution date will be set for
Mumia. If his ruling is upheld, the DA can still impanel a new jury to
rehear the penalty phase, which could then sentence Mumia to death --
regardless of the 3rd Circuit ruling.

Because the DA appealed Yohn's death penalty decision, Mumia has never left
death row, and is still unable to have such "privileges" as full-contact
visits with his family.

The Four Issues Being Considered

In December, 2005, the 3rd Circuit announced the beginning of deliberations
and shocked many by agreeing to consider two claims not "certified for
appeal" by Yohn in 2001.

Mumia's attorney Robert R. Bryan declared it to be "the most important
decision affecting my client since his 1981 arrest, for it was the first
time there was a ruling that could lead to a new trial and his freedom." The
courts are now considering the following four issues:

#1. Whether the penalty phase of Mumia's trial violated the legal precedent
set by the US Supreme Court's 1988 Mills v. Maryland ruling. This issue was
Yohn's grounds for overturning the death sentence and is now being appealed
by the DA.

#2. "Certified for appeal" by Yohn in 2001, the Batson claim, addresses the
prosecution's use of peremptory challenges to exclude Blacks from Mumia's
jury. In 1986, the US Supreme Court ruled in Batson v. Kentucky that a
defendant deserves a new trial if it can be proved that jurors were excluded
on the grounds of race.

At Mumia's trial, Prosecutor McGill used 11 of his 15 peremptory challenges
to remove black jurors that were otherwise acceptable. While Philadelphia is
44% black, Abu-Jamal's jury was composed of ten whites and only two blacks.
From 1977-1986 when current Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell was
Philadelphia's District Attorney, the evidence of racism is striking: from
1977-86, the Philadelphia DA struck 58% of black jurors, but only 22% of
white jurors.

#3. The legality of McGill's statement to the jury minimizing the
seriousness of a verdict of guilt: "if you find the Defendant guilty of
course there would be appeal after appeal and perhaps there could be a
reversal of the case, or whatever, so that may not be final."

In 1986 the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled against McGill in another case
(Commonwealth v. Baker) on the same grounds. When Abu-Jamal addressed this
same issue in his 1989 appeal with the State Supreme Court, the court
reversed its decision on the legality of such a statement -- ruling against
the claim for a mistrial.

Incredibly, just one year later, in the very next case involving this issue
(Commonwealth v. Beasley), the State Supreme Court flip-flopped and restored
the precedent. However, this would not affect the ruling against Mumia,
because the court ruled that this precedent would only apply in "future
trials." This suggests that the rulings were designed to specifically
exclude Mumia's case from its precedent.

#4. The fairness of Mumia's 1995-97 PCRA hearings when the retired,
74-year-old Judge Sabo was called back specifically for the hearing. Besides
the obvious unfairness of recalling the exact same judge to rule on his
fairness in the original 1982 trial, his actual PCRA bias has been
extensively documented.

During the 1995 hearings, the mainstream Philadelphia Inquirer wrote that
the "behavior of the judge in the case was disturbing the first time around
-- and in hearings last week he did not give the impression to those in the
courtroom of fair mindedness. Instead, he gave the impression, damaging in
the extreme, of undue haste and hostility toward the defense's case."

Concluding the PCRA hearing, Sabo rejected all evidence and every witness
presented by the defense as not being credible. Therefore, Sabo upheld all
of the facts and procedures of the original trial as being correct.

"I'm Going To Help Them Fry The Nigger"

In 2001 another witness -- Terri Mauer-Carter -- challenged Sabo's
integrity, but the State Supreme Court ruled against the defense's right to
include her affidavit in their current federal appeal. Mauer-Carter was
working as a stenographer in the Philadelphia Court system on the eve of
Mumia's 1982 trail when she states that she overheard Judge Sabo say in
reference to Mumia's case that he was going to help the prosecution "fry the
nigger."

Journalist Dave Lindorff recently interviewed Mauer-Carter's former boss,
Richard Klein, who was with Mauer-Carter when she states she overheard Sabo.
A Philadelphia Common Pleas Court judge at the time, who now sits on PA's
Superior Court, Klein told Lindorff: "I won't say it did happen, and I won't
say it didn't. That was a long time ago." Lindorff considers Klein's refusal
to firmly reject Mauer-Carter's claim to be an affirmation of her statement.

The State Supreme Court ruling was an affirmation of lower-level Judge
Patricia Dembe's argument that even if Maurer-Carter is correct about Sabo's
stated intent to use his position as Judge to throw the trial and help the
prosecution "fry the nigger," it doesn't matter. According to Dembe, since
it "was a jury trial, as long as the presiding Judge's rulings were legally
correct, claims as to what might have motivated or animated those rulings
are not relevant."

Organizing for May 17

Before the May 17 date had been set, Abu-Jamal supporters had already been
organizing events for April 24 -- Mumia's birthday. The event in
Philadelphia will show the film Framing an Execution (narrated by Danny
Glover), which analyzes the biased presentation of Abu-Jamal's case by Sam
Donaldson on ABC's 20/20 in 1999. Afterwards, the forum will discuss new
evidence of innocence.

On the same day in France, Abu-Jamal's international supporters will be
joined by a US delegation defending last April's naming of a street for
Abu-Jamal in the Paris suburb of St. Denis.

"In 2001, when Judge Yohn affirmed Mumia's conviction, he said there was no
evidence to show that Mumia is innocent. That is absolutely not true, but
Yohn could get away with saying this because the mainstream media did not
hold him accountable." Pam Africa argues that independent journalism and
aggressive media-activism are urgently needed to challenge the mainstream
media to report accurately about the upcoming oral arguments. "Deceitful
mainstream media coverage since November has not presented the extensive
evidence of Mumia's innocence, and this dishonest coverage makes Mumia seem
like a cold blooded killer. Only independent media has been putting the
truth out about Mumia."

Among the many stories about Abu-Jamal in the independent press, Africa
highly recommends reading about the important new evidence presented in
German author Michael Schiffmann's new book on the case -- especially the
new discovery of crime-scene photos that expose police manipulation of
evidence at the scene.

If supporters are unable to travel to Philadelphia on May 17, Africa
encourages people do something in their hometown to publicize the oral
arguments and hold the mainstream media accountable in their coverage of the
case. "Mumia's case represents all that is wrong with this system. We must
take action now before its too late."

For more information, check out mumia.org (Philadelphia), freemumia.com (New
York City), freemumia.org (San Francisco), or emajonline.com (Educators for
Mumia). For the latest on Abu-Jamal from the independent media, check out
Bennett's new "Voice of the Voiceless" series on Abu-Jamal being published
in the months leading up to the oral arguments at:
http://hbjournalist1.googlepages.com/ms

---

Source : Dissent Voice (Hans Bennett (insubordination.blogspot.com) is a
Philadelphia-based photojournalist who has been documenting the movement to
free Mumia and all political prisoners for more than five years)

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Apr07/Bennett02.htm

No comments: