Federal hearing may be pivotal for Abu-Jamal
May 18, 2007 (5 articles)
An appellate court heard his arguments that blacks were excluded illegally
from the jury that convicted him of killing a policeman in 1981.
By Emilie Lounsberry, Philadelphia Inquirer
While supporters of Philadelphia'
demonstrated outside, a federal appeals court wrestled yesterday with the
question of whether the prosecution intentionally kept blacks off the jury
in the 1982 murder trial of Mumia Abu-Jamal.
Abu-Jamal, a former radio reporter then driving a cab, is seeking a new
trial for the 1981 murder of Police Officer Daniel Faulkner - or at least a
chance to get off death row.
If he loses this round before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit, Abu-Jamal, now 53, will be more at risk of execution than at any
point in his 25 years of appeals.
So the stakes were high yesterday in a court proceeding that focused
squarely on the law as the three judges pressed prosecutors and Abu-Jamal's
lawyers about the key points in the case - especially about how to determine
if blacks were unfairly excluded from the jury.
Abu-Jamal's lawyer, Robert R. Bryan, contends that there was a "culture of
discrimination" in the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office around the
time of the 1982 trial, and that the prosecutor used 10 of 15 challenges to
strike potential jurors who were black.
But prosecutors contend that there was no evidence of racial discrimination
and that Abu-Jamal waived any chance to make that argument now by failing to
raise any objections during jury selection in 1982.
"There was no timely objection. That defeats the claim," Hugh J. Burns Jr.,
chief of the appeals unit in the District Attorney's Office, told the
judges.
While the high-level legal debate continued for more than two hours, a quiet
audience of about 200 people listened intently. Abu-Jamal supporters from
Germany and France, along with activist Dick Gregory and local MOVE activist
Ramona Africa, sat amid family members of the slain officer, including his
wife, Maureen, who traveled from California for the hearing.
Maureen Faulkner said at the end of the court proceeding that she remains
convinced of Abu-Jamal's guilt. "No matter who was on the jury, I think they
would have come to the same conclusion," she said.
As the audience poured out onto the plaza, which was filled with placards
and banners in support of Abu-Jamal, people on both sides of the case seemed
to agree, finally, on something: The judges were well-prepared and had held
a fair hearing.
"The judges were very professional,
of a French delegation that came from Paris for the hearing. She said she
has studied the case and read the transcript of the trial before
Philadelphia Common Pleas Judge Albert Sabo.
"I don't know what the conclusion will be, but it was very different than
Judge Sabo," she said.
Abu-Jamal was sentenced to death in July 1982 by a predominantly white
Philadelphia jury. The state Supreme Court upheld his conviction in 1989 and
also refused to grant him subsequent relief.
When the case moved to federal court, U.S. District Judge William H. Yohn
Jr. rejected 28 of the 29 defense claims.
But Yohn did rule in favor of Abu-Jamal in deciding that the jury may have
mistakenly believed it had to agree unanimously on any "mitigating"
circumstance that might have persuaded jurors to decide on life rather than
death.
And in turn, Yohn said that Abu-Jamal should be sentenced to life, instead
of death, or get a new hearing only on what his sentence should be.
The Third Circuit panel - Chief Judge Anthony J. Scirica and Judges Thomas
L. Ambro and Robert E. Cowen - peppered the lawyers with questions about the
ambiguous jury instructions and whether the prosecutor made unfair remarks
during his closing argument.
A decision is not expected for several months.
But it was questions about jury selection that dominated the argument. All
three judges have granted relief to death-row inmates in cases in which they
found that prosecutors had unfairly struck jurors for racial reasons.
Burns contended that the trial prosecutor, Joseph McGill, had wanted blacks
on the jury, but Bryan argued the case was infused with racial elements at a
time when the District Attorney's Office was known for trying to exclude
blacks from juries.
"Discrimination was at work by the D.A.'s office during this period," said
Bryan.
The Third Circuit will now review Yohn's reasoning on the jury instructions,
and also consider whether there was racial bias during jury selection and
whether Abu-Jamal's constitutional rights were violated by the prosecutor's
closing argument and by the alleged bias of the trial judge during
post-conviction review.
The Third Circuit could:
- Reverse Yohn and uphold the death sentence.
- Uphold Yohn and order a new sentencing hearing.
- Grant a new trial.
- Send the case back to Yohn for a hearing.
Even if the court upholds the death sentence, Abu-Jamal could attempt to
persuade the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case, or try to go back again to
the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, where he still has one petition pending.
---
Source : Philadelphia Inquirer
http://www.philly.
***
May 17, 2007
Pennsylvania
Abu-Jamal lawyers try to show court he didn't get fair trial
MARYCLAIRE DALE, The Associated Press
PHILADELPHIA - An appeals court panel pressed defense lawyers and
prosecutors on how to determine whether the district attorney intentionally
kept blacks off the jury that convicted former Black Panther Mumia Abu-Jamal
of killing a white police officer in 1981.
Abu-Jamal's death sentence was overturned in 2001. Prosecutors are asking
the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reinstate it, while Abu-Jamal's
attorney are challenging his 1982 conviction.
Abu-Jamal, 53, has built a global following through his politically charged
writings and recorded speeches from prison. Actors, writers, death-penalty
opponents and a melange of other activists have staged rallies on his behalf
around the world over the years. About 500 supporters protested at the
courthouse Thursday.
The jury that convicted and sentenced Abu-Jamal had 10 whites and two
blacks.
In arguments Thursday morning, Chief Circuit Judge Anthony J. Scirica told
Abu-Jamal's attorney Robert R. Bryan that many courts say judges should
compare the rate at which blacks are struck from juries to the racial makeup
of the entire jury pool.
Both sides agreed there is no such record for the 150-person jury pool used
for Abu-Jamal's trial.
"I don't know how we could get it," Bryan said. "We're a day late and a
dollar short with that issue, unfortunately.
Prosecutor Hugh Burns says the issue wasn't raised until mid-1990s, making
it hard for his office to defend the accusation.
Abu-Jamal, a former radio reporter, was convicted in 1982 of shooting
Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner a year earlier. Faulkner had
pulled over Abu-Jamal's brother in a traffic stop when Abu-Jamal, according
to witnesses, ran to the scene from his nearby taxi and shot the 26-year-old
officer repeatedly. Abu-Jamal was shot once, apparently by the downed
patrolman.
A federal judge in 2001 threw out the death sentence because of improper
jury instructions, but upheld Abu-Jamal's conviction. Both sides are
appealing.
Philadelphia prosecutors call the evidence in the case overwhelming. They
are asking the appeals panel to reinstate the death sentence.
The appeals panel is weighing three issues: whether the trial judge was
racially biased, whether the judge erred in instructing jurors on the death
penalty, and whether the prosecution preferred white jurors.
About 500 pro-Abu-Jamal protesters were gathered outside the courthouse
Thursday.
One of them, Marcus Shell, 35, of Philadelphia, said Abu-Jamal didn't get a
fair trial because of who he was , "a former Black Panther, the voice of the
voiceless."
"Mumia represents a lot of blacks locked up in prison today," Shell said.
On the Net:
Free Mumia site: http://www.mumia.
Daniel Faulkner site: http://www.danielfa
---
Source : Associated Press
http://www.philly.
***
May 18, 2007
Pennsylvania
Citing Racist Bias, Attorneys For Mumia Abu-Jamal Urge A Federal Appeals
Court to Grant the Former the Black Panther A New Trial
Democracy Now!
Attorney Robert Bryan says a racist judge and racist jury practices
contributed to the sentencing of Abu-Jamal to death row. Bryan joins us in
New York one day after he argued before the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals in Phildelphia.
For our first segment, we turn to Philadelphia, and a pivotal court hearing
for the imprisoned journalist and former Black Panther Mumia Abu-Jamal.
Abu-Jamal has spent a quarter-century on death row. He was convicted of
killing a police officer following a controversial trial before a
predominantly white jury. In 2001, a judge overturned Abu-Mumia's death
sentence but upheld his conviction. On Thursday, a three-judge panel heard
oral arguments to decide whether Mumia gets a new trial, life in prison
without parole, or execution. Hundreds of people packed the courtroom while
an even larger crowd rallied in support of Mumia outside. A decision may not
come down for months.
We are joined now by Mumia Abu-Jamal's lead attorney. Robert Bryan has
represented Mumia since 2003. He is a fellow of the American Board of
Criminal Lawyers, and the former Chair of the National Coalition to Abolish
the Death Penalty.
Robert Bryan, Mumia Abu-Jamal's lead attorney. He is a fellow of the
American Board of Criminal Lawyers, and the former Chair of the National
Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty.
To purchase an audio or video copy of this entire program, click here for
our new online ordering or call 1 (888) 999-3877.
---
Source : Democracy Now!
http://www.democrac
***
May 18, 2007
Pennsylvania
Group protests US, supports jailed journalist
ANKARA - Turkish Daily News
A group of activists yesterday protested the United States for not releasing
journalist and political activist Mumia Abu-Jamal who has been in jail for
25 years and is currently on death row.
Journalist, intellectuals and political activists gathered in front of the
U.S. Embassy in Ankara under tight security. "We protest the American
administration'
statement.
Abu-Jamal, a black journalist with a past of Black Panther activism, was
convicted in 1982 of killing a police officer in Philadelphia. Anti-death
penalty activists worldwide claim he did not get a fair trial.
---
Source : Turkish Daily News
http://www.turkishd
***
May 18, 2007
Pennsylvania
Spectators Pack Courtroom as 3rd Circuit Hears Appeal in Mumia Abu-Jamal
Case
Shannon P. Duffy, The Legal Intelligencer
Nearly a quarter century has passed since Mumia Abu-Jamal was convicted and
sentenced to die for the murder of Philadelphia police officer Daniel
Faulkner, and in that time his case has become perhaps the world's most
closely watched death penalty case.
In December 2001, a federal judge overturned Abu-Jamal's death sentence due
to confusing jury instructions, but upheld his conviction.
Now, in an appeal to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, prosecutors are
asking that the death sentence be reinstated and Abu-Jamal's lawyers are
asking for an entirely new trial, arguing that the conviction must be
overturned because there is evidence that prosecutors improperly struck
black jurors in his 1982 trial.
Thursday, a three-judge panel consisting of Chief Judge Anthony J. Scirica
and Judges Thomas L. Ambro and Robert E. Cowen heard oral arguments that
lasted more than two hours, far longer than the ordinary 15 minutes per
side.
For many of the hundreds of spectators who packed the courtroom, the
arguments were likely difficult to follow as the judges and lawyers spoke in
a lexicon specific to modern-day death penalty litigation, often referring
to case law from the 3rd Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court. Much of the
arguments focused on highly technical and complicated questions about how
the federal courts should weigh such claims when a state court system has
already rejected identical arguments and upheld both the conviction and
death sentence.
But the bottom line was fairly simple: prosecutors insist that Abu-Jamal got
a fair shake in the Pennsylvania courts and that the federal courts should
not second-guess those rulings, while Abu-Jamal's lawyers insist that no
court has ever given their client justice since his trial was unfair from
the start due to a racially biased jury selection process and a racist trial
judge.
Arguing for the prosecution, Assistant District Attorney Hugh Burns told the
appellate panel that Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge William H. Yohn
Jr. erred when he overturned Abu-Jamal's death sentence because he should
have deferred to the decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which had
already held that the penalty-phase jury instructions were not confusing.
Yohn, in his 2001 decision, found that the jury instructions and the verdict
form could have left jurors with the incorrect perception that they needed
to be unanimous on any "mitigating factor" that would support a vote against
death.
Such jury instructions, Yohn said, violate the U.S. Supreme Court's 1988
decision in Mills v. Maryland.
"The jury charge and verdict form in this case created a reasonable
likelihood that the jury believed that it was precluded from considering a
mitigating circumstance that had not been found unanimously to exist," Yohn
wrote.
But Burns said the jury instructions in fact contained no such flaw.
Instead, he said, they merely failed to explicitly inform jurors that they
need not be unanimous on mitigating issues.
Such silence on an issue, Burns said, is not a Mills violation on its own,
and Yohn erred by holding that jurors in Abu-Jamal's case would assume the
unanimity requirement.
But Abu-Jamal's lawyer, Judith L. Ritter, urged the judges to focus on the
three-page jury verdict form that, she said, made it impossible for the jury
to understand that any one juror had the right to vote against the death
penalty on the basis of a mitigating factor even if no other juror agreed.
The verdict form, Ritter said, used the word "unanimously" twice in
connection with the death sentence, including once just before a list of
mitigating factors.
Ritter asked how the form could possibly be filled out to reflect a
non-unanimous finding and suggested that the only possible interpretation
the jury could have had was that it was required to be unanimous -- a
situation that would clearly violate Mills.
For Abu-Jamal, who has always insisted he is innocent, the more important
argument came next when attorney Robert R. Bryan argued that a new trial
must be ordered because of racial bias by prosecutors in the jury selection
process, a so-called Batson claim.
Abu-Jamal's Batson claim attracted the attention of the NAACP Legal Defense
and Education Fund, which filed an amicus brief supporting his claim. And in
a rarely seen step, the court agreed to hear oral argument on the issue from
NAACP attorney Christina Swarns.
In his Batson claim, Abu-Jamal complains that Assistant District Attorney
Joseph McGill peremptorily struck only four of 28 white potential jurors,
but struck 11 of 15 black jurors.
But Yohn found that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court correctly rejected that
claim, because Abu-Jamal had failed to meet the first prong of the Batson
test.
Prosecutor Burns told the court that Abu-Jamal's Batson claim is fatally
flawed because his lawyers never made any complaint during the jury
selection process. Instead, he said, Abu-Jamal's lawyers conceded at the
time that many blacks were being excluded from the jury for valid reasons
when they told the judge that they were opposed to the death penalty.
Burns also said the statistics are troublesome because there is no evidence
of the racial make-up of the entire jury pool. Without that statistic, he
said, it's impossible to make sense of a Batson claim.
But Swarns told the judges that no court has ever given Abu-Jamal a fair
shake on his Batson claim.
Under the Supreme Court's decision, she said, a defendant must make out a
prima facie claim that racially motivated jury strikes occurred, and the
burden then shifts to the prosecutor to explain his or her reasons for the
strikes.
"What we're talking about is smoke, not fire," Swarns said.
But Swarns said the courts have never reached the second step of the Batson
process because they have always imposed too strict a burden on Abu-Jamal in
the first phase.
Bryan urged the judges to look beyond Abu-Jamal's case, saying the U.S.
Supreme Court recognized in Batson that racially biased jury selection was a
"widespread" practice and that numerous other Philadelphia murder trials
from the same period have later spawned successful Batson claims.
"Are we to believe that this case is the exception to the rule?" Bryan
asked, noting that Abu-Jamal's case was "highly charged" from the outset
since he was a former Black Panther and was accused of killing a white
police officer.
---
Source : The Legal Intelligencer
http://www.law.
PDF
No comments:
Post a Comment