Cause for hope in Mumia case

As supporters of imprisoned African-American journalist Mumia Abu-Jamal gathered here on Dec. 9 to observe the 24th anniversary of his arrest, there was new cause for hope.

Mumia Abu-Jamal

The U.S. Court of Appeals of the Third Circuit had just decided, on Dec. 7, to hold hearings on three claims by Abu-Jamal that his 1982 trial, overseen by “hanging” Judge Albert Sabo, and a subsequent hearing were tainted by constitutional violations.

If any one of the three claims is upheld by a three-judge panel, it could lead to a new trial for Abu-Jamal, who still sits on Pennsylvania’s death row despite a 2001 ruling by Federal District Court Judge William Yohn overturning his death sentence.

At the annual commemoration, attorneys Leslie Jones and Michael Coard explained the significance of the court ruling, while reminding Abu-Jamal’s supporters that the Third Circuit Court, of which Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito is a member, has never been a friend of workers and oppressed people.

The Third Circuit’s rulings granted two “certificates of appealability” that allow Abu-Jamal to challenge alleged race and judicial bias in his 1995 Post-Conviction Relief Action proceedings. Like the trial, these proceedings were also overseen by Sabo, who went to extreme lengths to keep evidence of Abu-Jamal’s innocence out of the court record.

Jones noted that 29 of the 32 people of color on Pennsylvania’s death row were put there by Sabo.

The ruling also allows Abu-Jamal to challenge the trial summation remarks of the state’s lead prosecutor, Joseph McGill, who instructed the jury: “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.” This made it easier for the jury to convict.

McGill also used the fact that Abu-Jamal had been a member of the Black Panther Party when he was 16, claiming Abu-Jamal “had always wanted to kill a police officer.”

According to Abu-Jamal’s lead attorney, Robert R. Bryan, McGill’s statements had the effect of qualitatively lowering the historic burden of proof regarding reasonable doubt and presumption of innocence. Similar remarks by Pennsylvania prosecutors have resulted in new trials in other cases. However, Jones cautioned that “the rules never seem to apply in Mumia’s case.”

The Third Circuit Court’s decision was a surprise, however, because the appellate court was only required to consider an appeal from the defense on a single guilt-phase issue: that the prosecution had illegally removed qualified jurors from the case on the basis of race. While Judge Yohn rejected this claim in 2001, the appellate court had previously agreed to take up the issue.

Racism in jury selection was well documented in Abu-Jamal’s case. The defense appeal was based on the charge that exclusion of 11 of 14 Black jurors constituted an unconstitutional violation of the Supreme Court ruling on this issue in the case of Batson v. Kentucky.

Prosecutor McGill has a record in murder trials of rejecting roughly three out of four potential Black jurors—even after they had already agreed they would vote for capital punishment. This was a rate of peremptory rejection of qualified jurors three times higher than for potential white jurors.

Under the provisions of the 1996 Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, the court had no obligation to consider defense challenges to the Federal District Court ruling, so the fact that the judges agreed to hear two other claims is a major victory for the defense.

However, attorney Jones pointed out that Abu-Jamal’s previous defense team, led by Attorney Leonard Weinglass, submitted 29 claims when filing the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on Mumia’s behalf. Jones noted, “The Third Circuit Court chooses to ignore the 26 other claims, as well as the affidavits of former Philadel phia Court stenographer Terri Mauer-Carter that she overheard Sabo in 1982 make the statement ‘Yeah, and I’m going to help them fry the n****r’ in reference to Abu-Jamal; nor the affidavit by Arnold Beverly, that he, not Abu-Jamal, murdered Officer Faulkner.”

“They are just pulling out some pieces, but it’s okay,” Jones noted. “Mumia has so many issues in his case that have brought other people home; however, Mumia is still on death row.”

Attorney Michael Coard, along with Pam Africa of International Concerned Family and Friends of Mumia Abu-Jamal, cautioned that this is probably the most critical time ever in the case. “The courts will do what they are forced to do,” said Africa. “These people will never tell you how powerful the movement is, yet it’s the movement that has kept Mumia alive for the past 10 years.”

The case is now on the fast track, with stringent deadlines set for filing a series of briefs and counter briefs, beginning as early as Jan. 17, 2006. Once completed, the court will issue a decision or set a date for a hearing and oral arguments.