Mumia Abu-Jamal Court Case
Legal Update
March 23, 2007 at 13:22:42(originally appeared at OpEdNews.com)
Third Circuit Appeals Court Sets Date for Oral Arguments in Mumia Case
by Dave Lindorff
http://www.opednews.com
Mumia Abu-Jamal, the Philadelpia journalist and former Black Panther activist who has been on Pennsylvania's death row since 1982, will finally have his appeal of his conviction heard by a three-judge panel of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which set a date of May 17.
At that session, Abu-Jamal will argue that his original trial for the 1981 murder of police officer Daniel Faulkner was fatally flawed because of racial bias by the prosecutor in jury selection. He will argue that his conviction by that jury was improper because the prosecutor improperly was permitted to lessen jurors' sense of responsibility by assuring them that whatever they decided, the defendant would get "appeal after appeal" and so their decision "would not be final." He will also argue that his effort to appeal his conviction was damaged because his post-conviction relief act hearing was presided over by a judge who was clearly biased in favor of the district attorney.
The hearing will also hear a claim by the district attorney that Abu-Jamal's death sentence—lifted by a Federal Judge in 2001—should be reinstated. The federal district court had ruled that Abu-Jamal's sentence had been arrived at by a jury that was given improper and confusing instructions by Judge Albert Sabo, and that their sentencing form itself was misleading.
Meanwhile, it has been learned that the Philadelphia District Attorneys Office earlier this month attempted unsuccessfully to have the entire Third Circuit Court--one of the more liberal appeals courts in the nation—recused from hearing Abu-Jamal's appeal on the grounds that Abu-Jamal's claim of jury selection bias was charging then DA Ed Rendell (now Pennsylvania's governor), with having deliberately violated the law. Rendel's wife, Marjorie, is one of the appeals court judges in the Third Circuit.
Abu-Jamal's attorney Robert R. Bryan, objecting to the DA's effort, noted that there was no claim of illegality on the governor's part, but rather on the part of the prosecutor in the case, Joseph McGill. It is alleged that a succession of Philadelphia DA's encouraged their prosecutors to remove as many blacks as possible from capital juries, and documentary evidence has been submitted to show that this was done, both by the DA's office over all, and by assistant DA McGill in his own capital cases. During jury selection for Abu-Jamal's trial, 11 black potential jurors who had all agreed they could vote for a death penalty, were removed by McGill using his available peremptory challenges (meaning he did not have to give a reason for his action).
In a letter to the DA's office stating that the request to have all the circuit's judges recused from hearing the case had been rejected, the clerk of the court said that such a request would have to be made not as a letter, but in the form of a formal motion. In a scolding tone, the letter notes that such a motion "must be in proper form, i.e. an original and three copies and certificate of service."
"It must have been humiliating for the opposition" to receive such a note, comments attorney Bryan. He notes that to date, the DA has "not had the guts" to make such a formal motion, adding, "We'll see."
http://www.thiscantbehappening.net
Dave Lindorff, a columnist for Counterpunch, is author of several recent books (This Can't Be Happening! Resisting the Disintegration of American Democracy and Killing Time: An Investigation into the Death Penalty Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal). His latest book, coauthored with Barbara Olshanshky, is The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office (St. Martin's Press, May 2006). His writing is available at http://www.thiscantbehappening.net
January 24, 2006
Legal Update
From the office of Robert Bryan, esq.
Re: Mumia Abu-Jamal v. Martin Horn, Pennsylvania Director of Corrections
U.S. Court of Appeals Nos. 01-9014, 02-9001 (death penalty)
Dear Friends:
Last month the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Philadelphia, issued the most important decision affecting my client, Mumia Abu-Jamal, since his arrest nearly a quarter of a century ago. This is the first time any court has made a ruling that could lead to a new trial and his freedom. The court has accepted for review the following issues raised on federal habeas corpus and in the subsequent appeal, all of which are of great constitutional significance concerning the right to a fair trial, due process of law, and equal protection of the law under the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution:
- Claim 14, Whether appellant was denied his constitutional rights due to the prosecution’s trial summation?
- Claim 16, Whether the Commonwealth’s use of peremptory challenges at trial violated appellant’s constitu-tional rights under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986)?
- Claim 29, Whether appellant was denied due process during post-conviction proceedings as a result of alleged judicial bias?
Claim 14 relates to the prosecutor's prejudicial argument to the jury including the comment that if convicted Mumia would have “appeal after appeal.” That reduced the burden of the jurors, and turned the concept of reasonable doubt and presumption of innocence on its head. Claim 16 concerns the prosecutorial use of peremptory challenges to remove African-Americans from the jury. The record establishes that race is a major thread that has run through-out this case since Mumia's 1981 arrest. Claim 29 is about the bias and racism of the trial judge, Albert Sabo. Evidence was discovered in recent years through a courageous court stenographer, who overheard the judge say during a trial recess that he was “going to help'em fry the n****r.”
Another issue under consideration by the federal court, Claim 25, pertains to the death penalty. It addresses whether the death judgment can stand due to an unfair jury instruction. Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367 (1988).
The case is now moving rapidly. The court has issued a schedule for extensive briefing, with the first brief to be filed by the prosecution. The District Attorney made a 30-day extension-of-time request which has been granted, so its initial brief is now due on February 16. The complicated briefing process will go through the spring. Then we will present oral argument before a three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals.
This is a giant step in our effort to secure a new and fair trial for Mumia. Our goal is to win in this life-and-death struggle and see him walk out of jail a free person. However, we must not forget that Mumia remains in enormous danger. If the case is lost, he will die in the execution chamber.
Thank you for your concern and support in this campaign for justice.
Cordially yours,
Robert R. Bryan
Lead counsel for Mumia Abu-Jamal
RobertRBryan@aol.com
July, 2006
Legal Update and Latest Brief on Mumia
from Attorney Robert Bryan
Dear Friends:
On July 20, 2006 we filed the Brief of Appellee and Cross Appellant, Mumia Abu-Jamal, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Philadelphia. (Abu-Jamal v. Horn, U.S. Ct. of Appeals Nos. 01-9014, 02-9001.) This brief is of great significance concerning my client's right to a fair trial, due process of law, not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, and equal protection of the law, guaranteed by the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The issues the court is hearing are:
Claim 14 Whether Mr. Abu-Jamal was denied the right to due process of law and a fair trial because of the prosecutor's “appeal-after-appeal” argument which encouraged the jury to disregard the presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt, and err on the side of guilt.
Claim 16 Whether the prosecution's exclusion of African Americans from sitting on the jury violated Mr. Abu-Jamal's rights to due process and equal protection of the law , and contravened Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986).
Claim 25 Whether the verdict form and jury instructions that resulted in the death penalty deprived Mr. Abu-Jamal of the right to due process of law, equal protection of the law, and not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, and violated Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367 (1988), since the judge precluded the jurors from considering any mitigating evidence unless they all agreed on the existence of a particular circumstance.
Claim 29 Whether Mr. Abu-Jamal was denied due process and equal protection of the law during post-conviction hearings as the result of the bias and racism of Judge Albert F. Sabo which included the comment that he was “going to help'em fry the nigger."
The National Lawyers Guild, and, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., will be filing separate amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs in the near future. This should strengthen our quest to see justice done.
It is a remarkable accomplishment that the court is hearing issues that go to the very essence of Mr. Abu-Jamal's right to a fair trial. This is the first time that any court has made a ruling that could lead to a new trial and freedom. Nevertheless, he remains on Pennsylvania's death row and in great danger.
Mr. Abu-Jamal, the "voice of the voiceless," is a powerful symbol in the international campaign against the death penalty and for human rights. The goal of Professor Judith L. Ritter, associate counsel, and I is to see that the many wrongs which have occurred in this case are righted and that this brave man is freed.
Your support and concern is appreciated
With best wishes,
Robert R. Bryan
============
Law Offices of Robert R. Bryan
2088 Union Street, Suite 4
San Francisco, California 94123
Lead counsel for Mumia Abu-Jamal
To download the legal brief:
http://www.thejerichomovement.com/images13/07-20-06.pdf
(This is a 124-page, 5.5M document, so be PATIENT!
December 6, 2005
A Victory—Time to win this one! And Bring Mumia home
From the office of Robert Bryan, esq.
Dear Friends and Supporters: Today the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued the most important decision affecting my client, Mumia Abu-Jamal, since the lower federal court ruling in December 2001. An order was issued this morning that the court will accept for review the following issues, all of which are of enormous constitutional significance and go to the very essence of Mumia's right to a fair trial due process of law, and equal protection of the law under the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution:
- Claim 14: Whether appellant was denied his constitutional rights due to the prosecution's trial summation.
- Claim 16: Whether the Commonwealth's use of peremptory challenges at trial violated appellant's constitutional rights under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986).
- Claim 29: Whether appellant was denied due process during post-conviction proceedings as a result of alleged judicial bias.
Claim 16 concerns the prosecutorial use of racism in jury selection. The record establishes beyond question that racism is a major thread that has run through this case since Mumia's 1981 arrest, and continues to today. Claim 14 relates to the guilt phase. It includes the prosecutor's argument that if convicted Mumia would have "appeal after appeal." That comment effectively lessened the burden of the jurors, and turned the concept of reasonable doubt and presumption of innocence on its head. Claim 29 is about the bias and incredible racism of Judge Albert Sabo, the trial judge. Unfortunately, it is limited to his conduct at the 1995 evidentiary (PCRA) hearing, rather than his monstrous behavior at trial. This restriction is because all of the prior attorneys mistakenly did not attack Sabo's misconduct at trial, an unfortunate oversight and mistake
The court has also issued a briefing schedule. The case is now on the fast track, as I have been predicting. The opening briefs are due to be filed by January 17, 2006.
View the order at www.freemumia.com. Today we achieved a great victory in the campaign to win a new trial and the eventual freedom of Mumia. Your support, and activism, is badly needed and appreciated. With best wishes,
Robert R. Bryan
=============
Law Offices of Robert R. Bryan
2088 Union Street, Suite 4
San Francisco, California 94123
Lead counsel for Mumia Abu-Jamal
PS: The order also grants the Prosecution's request to hear claim 25, which was the claim which Judge Yohn used to suspend Mumia's death sentence. Obviously the prosecution is seeking the reimposition of that sentence.