Open World Conference of Workers
In Defense of Trade Union Independence & Democratic Rights
|
For several years leading up to 1981, Mumia Abu-Jamal, an African American award winning radio journalist in Philadelphia, had been an eloquent and vocal critic of police brutality in that city. Philadelphia is the first city in the country sued by the U.S. Department of Justice because of the brutality and corruption of its police force. In fact, three hundred prisoners were ordered released because they were wrongly convicted.
Early on a December morning in 1981, Abu-Jamal, while driving a cab to supplement his income as a journalist, came upon a confrontation between his brother and a white police officer. Abu-Jamal went over to see what was going on. What happened next is in dispute but when it was over, the police officer had been shot to death and Abu-Jamal lay critically wounded with a bullet in his chest.
Abu-Jamal was charged with murdering the police officer, was convicted, and given the death sentence. For eighteen ensuing years, his case has been in the courts. His legal appeals may soon be running out. From the beginning, Abu-Jamal has insisted he is innocent. Based on the facts and records in this case, there are serious doubts that he received a fair trial and that his guilt has been proven.
Abu-Jamal's "Confession"
After the incident, Abu-Jamal was taken to a hospital. While there, according to police testimony at the trial, Abu-Jamal allegedly confessed to shooting the police officer. He supposedly screamed, "I shot the MFer and I hope he dies." If he said that, it would certainly be strong evidence of guilt.
However, the evidence is there was no such confession. First and foremost, there is the recorded statement made by the police officer assigned to guard Abu-Jamal at the hospital: "The male Negro made no comment." When this officer was called as a defense witness, the prosecution said he was on vacation and unavailable, even though he was at home just a few minutes away from the courtroom. The judge refused a continuance so he could be brought in. When this same officer stated months later that he had, in fact, heard Abu-Jamal confess to the shooting at the time Abu-Jamal was brought into the hospital, the officer was asked how he squared that with what he said in his report at the time of the incident. He said he was "emotionally wrought up" and that is why he failed to report Abu-Jamal's alleged confession.
But there is more. No police officers present claimed to have heard this "confession" until two months after it allegedly occurred. That was right after Abu-Jamal had filed police brutality charges.
The doctor who was in the hospital when Abu-Jamal was brought in and who treated him, stated that Abu-Jamal said nothing. In other words, he backed up what the police officer originally wrote in his official report.
The Ballistics Evidence
According to the medical examiner's official report, the police officer was killed with a .44 caliber gun. Abu-Jamal had a gun that he was licensed to carry -- he had been robbed shortly before the incident and like most cab drivers in Philadelphia he carried a gun for protection -- but it was a .38, not a .44. This strongly indicated that the shooter was someone else.
The jury at Abu-Jamal's trial was never told that the medical examiner's report stated that the police officer was "shot w/ 44 cal." Abu-Jamal's court-appointed attorney failed to note that portion of the report, so he never raised it. When confronted later with the fact that Abu-Jamal's gun was a .38, the medical examiner contradicted his own report and said that the bullet that killed the officer could have been fired from a .38.
But there is more. The Philadelphia police say they conducted ballistic tests but cannot say that the bullet that killed the officer came from Abu-Jamal's gun. They said they lost a bullet fragment removed by the medical examiner. Moreover, the police never tested Abu-Jamal's hands at the scene to determine whether he had recently fired a shot. Nor did they test his weapon to see if it had recently been fired. So there is no factual evidence linking Abu-Jamal or his gun to the shooting.
The Eyewitnesses
Witnesses on the scene gave police statements that they saw a man fleeing from the area immediately after the shooting. One testified to that effect at the trial.
But others were harassed into giving false testimony. Veronica Jones, who now testifies in support of Abu-Jamal, was threatened with the loss of her children if she did not support the police story. Two prosecution witnesses Cynthia White and Robert Chobert were given special favors by the police in exchange for their testimony, including exemption from criminal prosecution.
Other Evidence of Innocence
Although it was not revealed to the defense at the time of trial, the prosecution has now acknowledged that the slain police officer had in his possession at the time of the incident a driver's license application belonging neither to Abu-Jamal nor his brother. The document belonged to a man who had loaned it to the man in the car with Abu-Jamal's brother at the time of the confrontation. This man had a criminal record (Abu-Jamal did not) and he was later arrested on another charge. He was found to own a gun that could have been the murder weapon. The man was killed two years after the incident for which Abu-Jamal was arrested.
Did Abu-Jamal Receive a Fair Trial?
By all recognized legal standards, Abu-Jamal was denied a fair trial. The trial judge denied him the right to represent himself. He was removed from the court room for much of the trial and no audio provision was made for him to hear the testimony against him. The court-appointed attorney, an inexperienced and incompetent lawyer, did not give him proper representation, as shown by the attorney's overlooking critical exculpatory evidence and by his admission that he did not interview a single witness prior to the trial. Nor did this attorney subpoena witnesses who could have helped Abu-Jamal's defense.
The defense did not have funds for forensic, ballistics, pathologists, and other experts who could refute the prosecution's witnesses. The defense investigator quit the case before the trial began because the meager court allocated funds ran out. This put the defense at a considerable disadvantage throughout the trial.
There were only two African Americans on the jury, even though 40% of Philadelphia's population is black. The prosecution systematically challenged otherwise qualified black jurors to keep them off the jury. This was in line with an illegal and discriminatory practice brought to light by the discovery of a training film which shows a district attorney instructing Philadelphia prosecutors how to keep blacks from serving on juries.
The judge, Albert Sabo, ruled consistently for the prosecution. This judge has sentenced more people to death than any other sitting judge in the United States.
Six Philadelphia attorneys, some of them former prosecutors, offered in court (in a different trial) to testify that no accused person could receive a fair trial in Sabo's courtroom.
Demand Grows for a New Trial
Millions of people around the world are speaking up against Abu-Jamal's planned execution. In addition to many unions, there is the Congressional Black Caucus; civil rights leaders like Coretta Scott King, Jesse Jackson, and Catholic Bishop Thomas Gumbleton; Nelson Mandela and Archbishop Desmond Tutu; the European Parliament, representing the elected representatives of all the European countries; Amnesty International; several religious groups; well-known personalities like Harry Belafonte, Paul Newman and Danny Glover; and countless others, all concerned that a terrible injustice is being committed here and that people of conscience must speak out to stop it.
Current Status of the Case
Abu-Jamal has now exhausted all attempts to secure relief in the Pennsylvania State courts. Accordingly, his attorneys have filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in a federal district court. This court will soon decide whether Abu-Jamal will receive an evidentiary hearing, a new trial, a summary judgment in his favor, or whether he will be denied all relief.
January 12, 2000