|
WSWS : News
& Analysis : North
America : Mumia
Abu-Jamal
The case of Mumia Abu-Jamal: US court agrees to consider defense
motion charging bias
By Tom Bishop
4 February 2000
Use
this version to print
In a significant development in the case of US political prisoner
Mumia Abu-Jamal, Federal Judge William Yohn on January 20 allowed
defense attorneys to file a new motion charging extreme bias on
the part of Judge Albert Sabo, who presided over Abu-Jamal's 1982
trial and subsequent appeals.
Abu-Jamal has been on Pennsylvania's death row for the past
18 years after being framed up for the shooting death of Philadelphia
policeman Daniel Faulkner. The 100-page motion and memorandum
requests Judge Yohn to review for reasonableness the State
Court's Finding of Fact in the 1982 trial and post-conviction
relief hearings.
Albert Sabo, who is now retired, is a lifetime member of the
Fraternal Order of Police. During his time on the bench he sentenced
32 defendants to death, more than any other judge in the country.
Attorneys representing the Pennsylvania District Attorney's
office wanted the Findings of Fact excluded from the
record. They maintained that under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective
Death Penalty Act, signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1996, a
federal judge is bound by the findings of the state courts. The
1996 law severely restricts the ability of federal courts to overturn
decisions in state trials. However Judge Yohn rejected the arguments
of the Pennsylvania DA's office.
The Findings of Fact motion details that at the
1995 state court appeal, Judge Sabo ruled that decisions made
in the 1982 municipal court trial were correct. The appeal hearing
took place after Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge had signed the
first death warrant for Abu-Jamal. Sabo quashed over two dozen
subpoenas and denied without any explanation the defense request
for pre-hearing discovery.
Sabo also ruled in 1995 that witnesses who said they had been
pressured and threatened by police to give false testimony in
1982 were not credible. He ruled that every prosecution witness
had been truthful, while every defense witness had been untruthful,
and barred the admission of witnesses and documents critical to
Abu-Jamal's defense.
In 1997 the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court upheld Sabo's
denial of Abu-Jamal's appeal for a new trial. Abu-Jamal's lawyers
contend that the Findings of Fact show that their
client was denied a full and fair hearing when the
state Supreme Court upheld his death sentence.
Judge Yohn will now be able to review a petition for Habeas
Corpus filed last October 15 and the Findings of Fact
in making his decision on whether or not to allow an evidentiary
hearing, where witnesses can provide testimony, in determining
whether there is a basis for a new trial. If such a hearing were
granted it would strengthen the case of the defense in demonstrating
that their client was the victim of a frameup. A decision on how
the court will proceed is expected sometime in early April.
In a related legal development, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
has ordered the review of the murder conviction of a Philadelphia
man to determine if the prosecutor improperly kept African-Americans
off of his jury. Though it called the evidence of his guilt overwhelming,
the Court ordered Philadelphia Common Pleas Judge David Savitt
to review the case of William Basemore, who was convicted by a
jury in 1988 and given the death sentence.
The decision reopens a 1997 controversy that was sparked when
Philadelphia District Attorney Lynne Abraham, running for re-election,
released a ten-year old videotape of her Republican opponent,
Jack McMahon. In the training video for novice prosecutors, McMahon
advised them to keep African-Americans from low-income neighborhoods
off of juries because they are less likely to convict.
It also advised against picking young black women because they
tended to show antagonism to law enforcement officials,
and advised keeping smart people off as well. Basemore's
case was prosecuted by McMahon when he was a district attorney.
The McMahon tape has been one of the issues in Mumia Abu-Jamal's
case. In May 1997, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied admission
of the tape as evidence. Abu-Jamal has repeatedly protested the
jury selection process at his 1982 trial.
At the 1995 appeal before Judge Sabo, Abu-Jamal was prevented
from presenting evidence that race-conscious jury selection of
nearly all-white juries was a routine practice of Philadelphia
prosecutors. He was also barred from introducing a study that
showed the DA's office struck African-Americans from jury service
55.3 percent of the time, as opposed to 23.4 percent for non African-Americans.
Support for Mumia Abu-Jamal, who has become well-known as an
opponent of police brutality, racism and the death penalty, continues
to build in the United States and internationally. On January
12, three officials of the Civil Rights Division of the US Department
of Justice met with a twelve-member delegation representing the
International Committee to Save the Life of Mumia Abu-Jamal.
The delegation included trade union officials, a number of
human rights organizations such as Amnesty International, and
members of the National Lawyers Guild. They presented an Open
Letter to Bill Clinton signed by hundreds of thousands of
people around the world, requesting an investigation into Abu-Jamal's
case by the US Justice Department. Although a well-attended press
conference took place with reporters from both the American and
international press corps, it was blacked out by the US news media.
See Also:
The social context
of a police frame-up
Why we defend Mumia Abu-Jamal
[17 May 1999]
The fight to free Mumia
Abu-Jamal and the defense of democratic rights
[23 April 1999]
Top of page
The WSWS invites your comments.
Copyright 1998-2008
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved |