Mumia Abu-Jamal

Von: "MUMIA ABU-JAMAL" <>
Betreff: !*New Mumia Essay by J. Patrick O'Connor
Datum: Samstag, 4. April 2009 20:26
 
via: nycjericho@gmail.com
 
-----------------------------
In denying Abu-Jamal’s Batson claim, the Third Circuit’s ruling
created new law by placing new restrictions on a defendant’s ability
to file a Batson claim. The Third Circuit, in effect, tampered with
and undermined a long-established Supreme Court ruling.
------------------------------
 
http://www.phillyimc.org/en/mumia-abu-jamal%E2%80%99s-last-chance-justice
 
 
Mumia Abu-Jamal’s
Last Chance for Justice
By J. Patrick O’Connor
 
Since his conviction in 1982 for the murder of Philadelphia Police
Officer Daniel Faulkner, Mumia Abu-Jamal, through his numerous books,
essays and radio commentaries, has become the face of the anti-death
penalty movement in the United States and an international cause
célèbre. Paris, for example, made him an honorary citizen in 2003,
bestowing the honor for the first time since Pablo Picasso received it
in 1971.
 
Abu-Jamal’s case has been politically charged from the beginning. As
Amnesty International established in its 2000 pamphlet entitled "The
Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal: A Life in the Balance," his tortuous appeal
process has been fraught with "judicial machinations." Claims that won
the day in other cases were repeatedly denied him, first by the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court in 1989 and subsequently by a Federal
District Court in 2001 where the judge overturned his death sentence
but left in place in his conviction – and Abu-Jamal on death row –
pending further appeals.
 
The latest example of what has become known as "the Mumia exception"
occurred in March of 2008 when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit, in a sharply divided 2-1 decision, turned down Abu-Jamal’s
appeal for a new trial based on the claim that the prosecutor –
through his use of peremptory challenges – purged otherwise qualified
blacks from his jury. In 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its
landmark Batson decision, ruling that racial discrimination in jury
selection is unconstitutional and merits the harmed defendant a new
trial.
 
In a nutshell, the Third Circuit majority denied Abu-Jamal’s Batson
claim on a technicality of its own invention, not on its merits,
ruling that his claim failed because he was not able to establish the
racial composition of the entire jury pool at his 1982 trial. In
issuing its ruling, the court, incredibly, ignored its own previous
opposite rulings in the Holloway v. Horn in 2004 and Brinson v. Vaughn
in 2005 where it specifically ruled it was not required for the
defendants in those cases to establish such data.
 
Abu-Jamal’s final opportunity for judicial relief is now before the
U.S. Supreme Court in the form of a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari.
On February 4, the high court docketed and accepted that filing.
According to Abu-Jamal’s lead attorney, Robert Bryan of San Francisco,
"The central issue in this case is racism in jury selection. The
prosecution systematically removed people from sitting on the trial
jury purely because of the color of their skin, that is, being black."
 
Joseph McGill, the prosecutor at Abu-Jamal’s trial, has stipulated in
previous appeal proceedings that he used 10 of the 15 peremptory
challenges he exercised to exclude blacks from the jury – a strike
rate of 66.67 percent against potential black jurors. Such a high
strike rate is in itself an extremely strong inference of
discrimination. The result was that – in a city with a black
population of over 40 percent in 1982 – only three of the 12 jurors
impaneled were black. As Third Circuit Judge Thomas Ambro pointedly
stated in his dissent, "It is my belief that the 66.67 percent strike
rate, without reference to the total venire [jury pool], can stand on
its own for the purpose of raising an inference of discrimination."
 
During last year’s term, the U.S. Supreme Court expanded its 1986
Batson ruling to warrant a new trial if a minority defendant could
show the inference of racial bias in the prosecutor’s peremptory
exclusion of one juror. Under Batson, the defense needed to show an
inference – i.e., a pattern – of racial bias in the overall jury
selection process. Ironically, the Supreme Court’s 7-2 decision
strengthening and expanding Batson’s reach was written by Justice
Samuel Alito, most recently of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
 
As a result, there is something more than a remote possibility that
the Supreme Court will agree to grant Abu-Jamal’s writ. In denying Abu-
Jamal’s Batson claim, the Third Circuit’s ruling created new law by
placing new restrictions on a defendant’s ability to file a Batson
claim. The Third Circuit, in effect, tampered with and undermined a
long-established Supreme Court ruling.
 
A Writ of Certiorari is a decision by the Supreme Court to hear an
appeal from a lower court. Supreme Court justices rarely give a reason
why they accept or deny Cert. Although all nine justices are involved
in considering Cert Petitions, it takes only four justices to grant a
Writ of Certiorari, even if five justices are against it. This is
known as "the rule of four."
 
If the Supreme Court were to grant Cert on Abu-Jamal’s Batson claim,
one clean, simple option for it would be to remand the case to federal
district court for the Batson hearing both the Federal District Court
in 2001 and the Third Circuit in 2008 should have ordered. Such a
hearing would, in all probability except for "the Mumia exception,"
lead to a new trial for Abu-Jamal. A new trial, considering the utter
travesty of justice his original trial represented, would set him
free. If Certiorari is denied, Abu-Jamal – now 54 – will, barring the
most unlikely intervention by a future governor of Pennsylvania, spend
the rest of his life in prison.
 
--J. Patrick O’Connor is the editor of Crime Magazine ( www.crimemagazine.com
) and the author of The Framing of Mumia Abu-Jamal, published by
Lawrence Hill Books in 2008.
 
FROM THE 'JOURNALISTS FOR MUMIA' WEBSITE:
 
**New articles on O'Connor's book by Carolina Saldaña, Linn Washington
Jr., Hans Bennett, and radio shows Law and Disorder, Jazz and Justice,
and KOWA**
 
 
VIDEO interview with J. Patrick O'Connor:
 
(WATCH PARTS 1, 2, and 3)
 
On May 1, the day of the book's release, AJN interviewed O'Connor at
Philadelphia City Hall. The next day, The Framing of Mumia Abu-Jamal
was featured in The NY Times: "Book Asserts Black Reporter Didn't Kill
White Officer in '81."
 
Read our exclusive interview from April, focusing on the frame-up,
Kenneth Freeman, the March 27 court ruling, and Frank Rizzo's legacy.
 
O’Connor argues that the actual shooter was Kenneth Freeman and he
criticizes the media, who "bought into the prosecution’s story line
early on and has never been able to see this case for what it is: a
framing of an innocent and peace loving man." For more on "The Framing
of Mumia Abu-Jamal" we are featuring an excerpt, a previous interview,
O’Connor’s review of "Murdered By Mumia," and his response to the
March 27 ruling.
 
 
 
--
Free All Political Prisoners!
nycjericho@gmail.com • www.jerichony.org
Kontakt- & Diskussionsmöglichkeit