MAJ Legal Archive

March 27, 2008: 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals Denies New Trial for Mumia Abu-Jamal

Posted on May 6, 2008. In a scandalous decision coming more than ten months after the May 17, 2007 Philadelphia hearing on the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal, the 3rd U.S. Court of Appeals confirmed the 2001 lifting of Abu-Jamal's death sentence, but denied him a new guilt phase trial. For analyses, see various articles on the website as well as www.abu-jamal-news.com.

July 27, 2006 Amicus Brief in Support of Mumia Abu-Jamal by the Legal Defense Fund of the NAACP

Posted August 23, 2006. June 28, 2006 LDF Supports Mumia Abu-Jamal's Right to Unbiased Jury Selection Yesterday, the Legal Defense Fund filed a "friend of the court" brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit supporting Mumia Abu-Jamal's claim of racial discrimination in jury selection. LDF's brief argues that Abu-Jamal's case presents substantial evidence of intentional discrimination in the exercise of peremptory challenges and that the lower courts erred in rejecting his claim. In 1982, Abu-Jamal was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death for the shooting of a police officer in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. LDF's brief outlines the compelling evidence of intentional discrimination in the exercise of peremptory challenges by Abu-Jamal's trial prosecutor: The racially charged nature of the case: Racial tensions in Philadelphia were at its worst when Mumia Abu-Jamal, the dread-locked, self-proclaimed revolutionary journalist, was charged in the police officer's death. Not only was Abu-Jamal, an African-American man, charged with killing a white police officer, the local media consistently highlighted the racial overtones of the case. The racially charged atmosphere of the trial was, therefore, rife for the abuse of Abu-Jamal's constitutional rights. The conduct of the trial prosecutor: Abu-Jamal's trial prosecutor used a disproportionate number of his peremptory challenges to exclude African-Americans from service on Abu-Jamal's trial: he struck 10 of 14 blacks, but only 5 of 25 whites from the pool of potential jurors. The trial prosecutor also indicated that he believed that for an African-American juror to be fair, s/he had to hate Abu-Jamal. Finally, the trial prosecutor had a history of excluding African-Americans from jury service. A survey of cases tried by this prosecutor between 1981 and 1983 showed that he excluded prospective African-American jurors three times as often as he excluded non-black jurors. The conduct of the Philadelphia County District Attorney's Office: a statistical study of Philadelphia County death penalty cases tried between 1981 and 1997 reveals that prosecutors in that office struck 51% of black jurors but only 26% of non-black jurors. Additionally, a videotaped training on jury selection produced by that office explicitly advocates the exclusion of African-American potential jurors. Finally, anecdotal experiences of defense lawyers as well as Pennsylvania court decisions corroborate the fact that the Philadelphia County prosecutor's office routinely excludes black jurors from service. In 1986, the United States Supreme Court, in Batson v. Kentucky, declared that the constitution is violated if a prosecutor in a particular case uses his/her peremptory challenges to exclude potential jurors on the basis of race. The Court held that the discriminatory use of peremptory challenges not only subject criminal defendants to an unfair trial, but also jurors-of-color to public race prejudice and a "brand of inferiority" and the larger community to questions about the integrity of the judicial system. In 2001, a federal court vacated Abu-Jamal's death sentence but denied his claim that the prosecutor used his peremptory challenges to exclude African-Americans from service on Abu-Jamal's jury. LDF has a long-standing concern and litigation record of challenging discrimination in jury selection, one of the most pervasive forms of racial discrimination in the criminal justice system. Last year, LDF won a decision in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Wilson v. Beard, in which Zachery Wilson, who was serving a life sentence, was granted a new trial. LDF's brief exposed the existence of a training tape that featured the prosecutor in Wilson's case, also tried in Philadelphia, explaining to young prosecutors in Philadelphia the importance and methods for eliminating prospective African-American jurors while successfully avoiding Batson challenges. In addition, LDF (serving as a "friend of the court") prevailed in last year's United States Supreme Court decisions validating the Batson claims of Texas death-sentenced prisoner, Thomas Joe Miller-El, and California prisoner Jay Shawn Johnson.

LEADING UK LAWYERS PETITION US APPEAL COURT

Posted July 17, 2006. Over 130 of the UK’s most distinguished lawyers are signatories to a letter initiated by Ian Macdonald QC and Legal Action for Women, to the US court of appeal highlighting the racism in the original trial and subsequent hearings of Mr Mumia Abu-Jamal. After 24 years on Pennsylvania’s death row, Mr Abu-Jamal, an award winning journalist convicted in 1982 of killing a policeman, has been granted an appeal which if successful could result in a new trial. This would be the first time his side of the case against conviction would be heard by a jury.

Supplemental Motion for Certificate of Appealability, to the U.S. Court of Appeal for the 3rd Circuit, filed on June 30, 2005

June 30, 2005, Motion for Certificate of Appealability, US Court of Appeals From Robert R. Bryan, Lead Counsel for Mumia Abu-Jamal: This file is the Supplemental Motion for Certificate of Appealability prepared on behalf of Mumia. It is being expressed on June 30th to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Philadelphia, for filing on July 1st. To date, only one habeas corpus claim has been certified for review by the Court of Appeals, i.e., Claim 16 which concerns the prosecution's systematic use of peremptory strikes to remove people of color from sitting on the jury. The purpose of this latest motion is to seek expansion of the issues considered on appeal. Those we are presenting are: Claim 6 Petitioner, Appointed Attorney Was Prejudicially Ineffective For Failing To Prepare For Trial, Investigate The Case, Retain And Consult Essential Experts, and Present Available Defenses. Claim 11 The Trial Court Deprived Petitioner Of His Right To Self-Representation. Claim 12 The Court Forced Removal Of Petitioner From Significant Portions Of His Capital Trial. Claim 13 Petitioner Was Denied His Right To Self-Representation And His Right To A Public Trial When He Was Excluded From Two In Camera Conferences. Claim 29 The Trial Judge Was Biased Against Petitioner Resulting in a Deprivation of His Right To a Fair Trial and Due Process Of Law. These are extremely complicated issues from both a legal and factual viewpoint. However, it all boils down to the fact that Mumia did not receive a fair trial. The jury heard essentially only one side of the case. Further, the trial occurred in an environment of great hostility, racism, and prejudice. What occurred in the 1982 trial in Philadelphia violated the very essence of Mumia's right to a fair trial, due process of law, and equal protection of the laws guaranteed by Amendments 5, 6 and 14 of the U.S. Constitution. The struggle to overturn the murder conviction, secure a new trial, and win Mumia's freedom has been long and difficult. I recall when Mumia and I first corresponded nearly two decades ago, and then met. What was true then remains true today: it is an outrage that Mumia remains is in prison. Even though in the worst of all places, death row, his spirits have not dampened. His weekly commentaries that are heard by so many throughout the world, are a testament to Mumia's overriding concern for the welfare of others. I have faith that we will succeed in righting this terrible wrong. We can win. Your ongoing support for Mumia is appreciated. With best wishes, * Robert R. Bryan * Lead counsel for Mumia Abu-Jamal

July 20, 2006 Brief of Mumia Abu-Jamal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Philadelphia

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.) It is attached. 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 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

July 26, 2006 Amicus Brief in Support of Mumia Abu-Jamal by the National Awyers Guild and Other Organizations

Posted August 23, 2006. Amicus Brief filed by the National Lawyers Guild and other organizations concerning claim 14 (minimizing of the jury's responsibility by remarks by Assistant District Attorney Joseph McGill) and claim 29 (Judge Sabo's partiality during Mumia Abu-Jamal's 1995 to 1997 PCRA proceedings). These claims were made in Abu-Jamal's 1999 habeas corpus petition, also posted on this webdite.

June 16, 2005 Response to May 27, 2005 Memorandum and Order

On June 16, 2005, Mumia Abu-Jamal's main attorney, Robert R. Bryan, filed a response to Judge Pamely Pryor Dembe's "Memorandum and Order to Dismiss" Abu-Jamal's December 8, 2003 3rd PCRA Petition. Bryan's response succinctly shows why the evidence proffered in the PCRA petition meets the legal standards and must be heard.

May 27, 2005 Memorandum and Order of Dismissal of PCRA Petition

[Posted June 7, 2005] On May 27, 2005, Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Pamela Pryor Dembe issued a "Memorandum and Order" announcing her intent to dismiss Mumia Abu-Jamal's 3rd PCRA petition (filed December 8, 2003) within 20 days. Abu-Jamal's main attorney, Robert Bryan, has already announced that he will file an appeal against this "Memorandum" until June 16, 2005. A comment by Robert Bryan and an analysis by Michael Schiffmann will be available shortly.

June 27, 2006: Legal Update from Robert R. Bryan, Lead counsel for Mumia Abu-Jamal

Posted July 21, 2006. Dear Friends: Attached is the latest Legal Update regarding current developments in the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal. Please feel free to distribute and use this as you see fit. As you know, Mumia remains on Pennsylvania's death row and is in great danger. He is a powerful symbol, the "voice of the voiceless," in the international campaign against the death penalty & for human rights. Our goal is to see that the many wrongs that have occurred in this case are righted and that this courageous man is freed. It is important that the attached Legal Update be published via your lists & web sites, so that people will be abreast of what is happening with Mumia's case. Your concern is appreciated. With best wishes, Robert R. Bryan Lead counsel for Mumia Abu-Jamal

December 6, 2005 Court Decision Granting Abu-Jamal Appealability on Three Points of His Habeas Corpus Petition

Posted January 11, 2006. Abu-Jamal's lead attorney Robert R. Bryan writes: 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. Please post this e-mail and the attached Order on your web sites, and circulate it. 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.

January 14, 2000 Briefing on the Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal by C. Clark Kissinger

Posted August 26, 2006. This January 2000 briefing by activist C. Clark Kissinger is still one of the best up to that point in time.

October 8, 2003 Dismissal of Abu-Jamal's 2nd PCRA Petition by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Posted July 7, 2006. This is the text of the October 8, 2003 dismissal of Mumia Abu-Jamal's 2nd PCRA petition.

May 6, 2001 Interview with Eliot Grossman

Posted July 11, 2006. This is a radio interview taken from the website www.radio4all.net. I will make all the radio interviews there concerning Mumia Abu-Jamal accessible for documentary purposes. This one is with former Abu-Jamal attorney Eliot Grossman and was was made on May 6, 2001. Eliot Grossman begins by introducing Mumia's then new legal team, then reads a statement by Mumia, recounting the events of Dec. 9, 1981 for the first time. He also discusses the revelation of Arnold Beverly who confessed to shooting of Daniel Faulkner.

Mumia Abu-Jamal's 3rd PCRA Petition, filed on December 8, 2003

On December 8, 2003, Mumia Abu-Jamal's then new lead attorney, Robert R. Bryan, filed a new petition for Abu-Jamal under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA). The basic claims raised in this petition were the following two: according to claim one, the main witness against Abu-Jamal, the prostitute Cynthia White, testified against him as a result of a whole range of police measures to get her to do so, with the measures ranging from supplying her with drugs to the promise of reduced harassment in the streets and reduced sentences to death threats if she refused to comply. This claim is supported by an affidavit by one Yvette Williams who at the time shared a prison cell with White. Claim two says that prosecution witness Priscilla Durham, a hospital guard in Philadelphia’s Jefferson Hospital where Abu-Jamal was treated for the gunshot wound he received at the crime scene, lied when she testified that Abu-Jamal immediately after having been brought in had boasted of killing the police officer. This claim is supported by the testimony of the hospital guard’s half brother, who testified that Durham told him that her testimony was false, that all that Abu-Jamal had said amounted to shouting that he was innocent and feared for his life, and that she testified the way she did to curry favor with the police.

November 21, 2001 Memorandum and Order of Dismissal of PCRA Petition

Posted July 7, 2006. In this "Memorandum and Order," Judge Pamely Pryor Dembe announces her intention to deny Mumia Abu-Jamal's 2nd PCRA petition filed on July 3, 2001. Dembe did in fact deny the petition on December 11, 2001. That decision was appealed to the Pnnsylvania Supreme Court (PSC) by the defense. The PSC denied the petition and accompanying material including the August 28, 2001, affidavit by Terri Maurer-Carter Carter on trial judge Albert F. Sabo's remark about "frying the nigger" on October 8, 2003. The defense's petition to the U.S. Supreme Court for writ of certiorari was denied on May 17, 2004.

The Trial Protocols of Mumia Abu-Jamal's Murder Trial, June 17 to July 3, 1982

This is a single PDF file containing all the trial protocols of Abu-Jamal's original murder trial in 1982, including his formal sentencing to death by Judge Albert F. Sabo on May 25, 1983. The advantage of this file is that everthing that was discussed and said during the seventeen days of the trial and the one day of formal sentencing is searchable so that many of the more complicated aspects of the case can be checked and counterchecked by just a few clicks.

1982 Suppression Hearing 4

January 6, 2006. This is the protocol of the fourth of four days of Abu-Jamal's suppression hearings. It took place on June 4, 1982. A summary and some comments will be added later on.

1982 Jury Selection 6

January 6, 2006. Following the four days of suppression hearings, there were six days of jury selection. Even though he acted as his own attorney, Abu-Jamal was very soon scandalously excluded from selecting the jury for his trial. This is the protocol of the sixth day - June 16, 1982 - of the jury selection (which is also called "voir dire"). A more extensive summary as well as comments will soon follow.

Protocols of Mumia Abu-Jamal's PCRA Hearings 1995, 1996, and 1997

This is a single Word file containing all the protocols of Abu-Jamal's hearings under Pennsylvania's Post-Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) in 1995, 1996, and 1997. As with Abu-Jamal's trial protocols also posted on this site, the advantage of this file is that everthing that was discussed and said during these hearings is searchable so that many of the more complicated aspects of the case can be checked and counterchecked by just a few clicks.

1982 Jury Selection 5

January 6, 2006. Following the four days of suppression hearings, there were six days of jury selection. Even though he acted as his own attorney, Abu-Jamal was very soon scandalously excluded from selecting the jury for his trial. This is the protocol of the fifth day - June 11, 1982 - of the jury selection (which is also called "voir dire"). A more extensive summary as well as comments will soon follow.

1982 Jury Selection 4

January 6, 2006. Following the four days of suppression hearings, there were six days of jury selection. Even though he acted as his own attorney, Abu-Jamal was very soon scandalously excluded from selecting the jury for the trial. This is the protocol of the fourth day - June 10, 1982 - of the jury selection (which is also called "voir dire"). A more extensive summary as well as comments will soon follow.

Mumia Abu-Jamal's October 14, 1999 Federal Habeas Corpus Petition

With this petition, Abu-Jamal's case moved to the federal level. Abu-Jamal's defense accused the State of Pennsylvania of no less than 29 constitutional violations during Abu-Jamal's original 1982 trial and his 1995-97 PCRA hearings. This petition is the backbone of Abu-Jamal's present litigation in Federal Court. A redrafted and amended version of this petition was filed on August 6, 2001, by Abu-Jamal's then defense team.

1982 Jury Selection 3

January 6, 2006. Following the four days of suppression hearings, there were six days of jury selection. Even though he acted as his own attorney, Abu-Jamal was very soon scandalously excluded from selecting the jury for the trial. This is the protocol of the third day - June 9, 1982 - of the jury selection (which is also called "voir dire.").A more extensive summary as well as comments will soon follow.

1982 Jury Selection 1

January 6, 2006. Following the four days of suppression hearings, there were six days of jury selection. Even though he acted as his own attorney, Abu-Jamal was verysoon scandalously excluded from selecting the jury for the trial. This is the protocol of the first day of the jury selection (which is also called "voir dire.").A more extensive summary as well as comments will soon follow.

1982 Jury Selection 2

January 6, 2006. Following the four days of suppression hearings, there were six days of jury selection. Even though he acted as his own attorney, Abu-Jamal was very soon scandalously excluded from selecting the jury for the trial. This is the protocol of the second day - June 8, 1982 - of the jury selection (which is also called "voir dire.").A more extensive summary as well as comments will soon follow.

1982 Suppression Hearing 3

January 6, 2006. This is the protocol of the third of four days of Abu-Jamal's suppression hearings. It took place on June 3, 1982. A summary and some comments will be added later on.

1982 Suppression Hearing 2

January 6, 2006. This is the protocol of the second of four days of Abu-Jamal's suppression hearings. It took place on June 2, 1982. A summary and some comments will be added later on.

1982 Suppression Hearing 1

January 6, 2006. This is the protocol of the first of four days of Abu-Jamal's suppression hearings. It took place on June 1, 1982. A summary and some comments will be added later on.

Mumia Abu-Jamal's Pretrial Hearing, April 29, 1982

Posted July 15, 2006. This is the PDF text of Abu-Jamal's Pretrial Hearing, April 29, 1982

Mumia Abu-Jamal's Pretrial Hearing, May 13, 1982

Posted July 15, 2006. This is the PDF text of Abu-Jamal's Pretrial Hearing, May 13, 1982

Trial Transcript Directory

This Trial Transcript Schedule lists the dates of the pre-trial hearings for which transcripts are available and, more importantly, the persons who were involved or took thestand on each day of Mumia Abu-Jamal's trial.

Mumia Abu-Jamal's Pretrial Hearing, April 1, 1982

Posted July 15, 2006. This is the PDF text of Abu-Jamal's Pretrial Hearing, April, 1982

Mumia Abu-Jamal's Pretrial Hearing, February 22, 1982

Posted July 15, 2006. This is the PDF text of Abu-Jamal's Pretrial Hearing, February 22, 1982

Trial Transcript of the March 29, 1982 Trial of Billy Cook for Aggravated Assault

Posted on May 8, 2008. This is the transcript of a trial that has been for the most part, unjustifiedly, ignored. It shows how Mumia Abu-Jamal's brother Billy Cook was also framed for a crime he did not commit. Even more importantly, it shows how unreliable and untruthful the testimony of two of the most important witnesses against Mumia Abu-Jamal actually was. Cynthia White and Marc Scanlan both testified at both the trial of Billy Cook and Mumia Abu-Jamal. A close analysis of the transcript shows that their testimonies are not only in wild contradiction to each other, but also in flat contradiction to the facts at the scene. For analysis, see my article "Spurious Witnesses, Impossible Events: The March 29, 1982 Trial of Billy Cook for Aggravated Assault" on the News section of this website.

Mumia Abu-Jamal's Pretrial Hearing, March 18, 1982

Posted July 15, 2006. This is the PDF text of Abu-Jamal's Pretrial Hearing, March, 1982

Mumia Abu-Jamal's Pretrial Hearing, January 20, 1982

Posted July 15, 2006. This is the PDF text of Abu-Jamal's Pretrial Hearing, January 20, 1982

Mumia Abu-Jamal's Pretrial Hearing, December 21, 1981

Posted July 15, 2006. This is the PDF text of Abu-Jamal's Pretrial Hearing, December 21, 1981