Mumia's Appeal Denied! Pittsburgh show your face!
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Free Mumia Free Mumia
Apr 14, 2008, 1:22:30 PM4/14/08
to pcfman...@googlegroups.com, pcfm...@googlegroups.com
April 19th - 2008 - Saturday
2pm the steps of East Liberty Presbyterian Church - Penn ave/Highland
Mumia's appeal was denied by the 3rd circuit court of PA. More info below.
The intent of this rally is to update folks on the case and to
rejuvinate the movement to Free Mumia and demand a NEW TRIAL!
Because
Mumia was railroaded by a racist system. Because countries and people around the world recognize the injustice. Because Mumia lives on death row one hour from Pittsburgh. Because Mumia speaks truth to power. Because Mumia never recieved a
fair trial.
Stand Up! Stand with Mumia! New Trial Now!
To hear Mumia's radio commentary's check out
Below is
a more in depth article
If your group would like to sponsor the event please email <hild...@aol.com>
This Is No Victory"--Analysis of recent court decision
regarding Mumia Abu-Jamal
by Linn Washington Jr.
Observations and analysis of Linn Washington Jr. on the
federal Third Circuit ruling in the Mumia Abu-Jamal case
issued on March 27, 2008. Washington, is a journalist and
university professor in Philadelphia who has written
extensively about the contentious case since Abu-Jamal's
arrest in December 1981.
OVERVIEW
The long awaited ruling by the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals in the Mumia Abu-Jamal case released on March 27,
2008 again displays the dismaying pattern of US courts
ignoring precedent to deny relief to this death row
journalist whose plight generates international support.
Precedent in American law means courts following previous
court rulings when determining specific legal issues.
Precedent is the bedrock of American law.
America law requires courts to follow precedent unless
significant evidence and/or compelling rationales
necessitate changing precedent.
This Third Circuit ruling changes precedent. This ruling
changes precedent by applying legal procedures in a highly
questionable manner to dismiss compelling evidence of
injustice against Abu-Jamal.
The Third Circuit did uphold the elimination of
Abu-Jamal's death sentence. This is no victory because the
ruling upheld his conviction thus condemning Abu-Jamal to
life in prison.
This ruling refused to grant Abu-Jamal a new hearing or
new trial on three compelling issues: prosecutors using
racism to exclude African Americans from the jury during
Abu-Jamal's 1982 trial; the prosecutor making improper
comments to that '82 jury at the end of the trial; and
pro-prosecution bias by the '82 trial judge during a 1995
appeals hearing.
The Third Circuit previously granted relief to persons
convicted of murder in Philadelphia after ruling that
Philadelphia prosecutors had illegally excluded African
Americans from juries.
However, in this Abu-Jamal case ruling, the court found no
fault in evidence of exclusion of African Americans from
the jury in his 1982 trial.
Curiously, the evidence of exclusion at Abu-Jamal's trial
is of equal or greater magnitude than proof of exclusion
previously found acceptable for relief by the Third
Circuit.
These previous rulings on jury discrimination formed the
precedent on that issue for the Third Circuit.
That precedent stated it is wrong for prosecutors to
discriminate against even one black potential juror.
Additionally, that precedent stated defendants did not
have to object to jury selection discrimination by
prosecutors immediately when it occurred.
Yet, this ruling reversed precedent on those two points of
legal procedure.
A week before this Abu-Jamal ruling, the US Supreme Court
granted relief to a death row inmate in Louisiana because
of a discriminatory jury selection process. That Supreme
Court ruling was written by a Justice on that court who
formerly served on the Third Circuit.
That Justice, Samuel Alito, had approved relief to
Philadelphia murder defendants due to discriminatory jury
selection practices by prosecutors. Alito, in a February
2005 Third Circuit ruling, stated prosecutors commit a
violation by removing "any black juror because" of their
race - a position similar to the position contained in
that recent US Supreme Court ruling he authored.
THIRD CIRCUIT RULING
The Third Circuit's ruling rested on a procedural finding
by two of the three judges on this appeal's court panel.
This finding stated that lawyers for Abu-Jamal during the
1982 trial and the 1995 appeal hearing failed to follow
the procedures legally required to properly raise the
issue of prosecutors improperly using racism during the
jury selection process.
The panel's majority asserted that "Abu-Jamal has
forfeited his Batson claim by failing to make a timely
objection" to improper procedures by prosecutors
referencing the US Supreme Court's 1986 Batson ruling that
outlaws the exclusion of black jurors for reasons rooted
in racism.
Philadelphia area author and investigative reporter Dave
Lindorff notes the absurdity of holding Abu-Jamal's lawyer
responsible for not strictly following procedures during
the 1982 trial that the US Supreme Court did not create
until four years later in that 1986 Batson case.
No lawyer (or judge) in the United States could predicted
what procedure the US Supreme Court would order four years
in the future observes Lindorff, author of the seminal
2003 book on the Abu-Jamal case: "Killing Time..."
In reaching this conclusion against Abu-Jamal's jury
discrimination claim, that Third Circuit panel's majority
created a new standard for persons raising Batson claims
in that court.
This standard requires that a Batson violation claim must
be raised at the time of jury selection -- a
contemporaneous objection.
Interestingly, in reaching this conclusion of procedural
errors by Abu-Jamal's attorney, the panel's majority
failed to note that this lawyer at 1982 trial was unfairly
thrust into the jury selection process after that process
was underway without the opportunity to do any
preparation.
The trial judge granted the prosecutor's request to remove
Abu-Jamal from selecting his own jury, a decision without
merit that unfairly benefited the prosecutor and stripped
Abu-Jamal of his right to represent himself. Plus, this
action aggravated tensions between Abu-Jamal and his
attorney.
Further, the panel's majority faulted an Abu-Jamal lawyer
for not properly raising the jury selection racism issue
during Abu-Jamal's first appeal in the late 1989s to the
Pa Supreme Court without acknowledging a major error
committed by the lawyer who filed that appeal.
That attorney prepared that appeal without ever reviewing
the trial transcript.
There is no way that attorney could have prepared a
legally valid appeal without knowing what specifically had
happened at trial. (That appeal attorney was also
suffering from what proved to be a fatal brain tumor, a
medical condition that impaired that attorney's cognitive
abilities.)
In creating this new standard, the panel's majority makes
it harder to prove Batson violations. Plus, this standard
changes that court's precedent on procedures needed to
raise Batson claims.
The judge who dissented from his two colleagues faulted
them for creating this new standard, a standard not
ordered by the US Supreme Court.
"This case's newly created contemporaneous objection
rule...goes against the grain of our prior actions, as our
Court has addressed Batson challenges on the merits
without requiring that an objection be made during jury
selection in order to preserve" future appellate review,
the dissenter said.
This judge, speaking specifically to changing precedent,
said since Third Circuit precedent did "...not have a
federal contemporaneous objection rule...I see no reason why
we should not afford Abu-Jamal the courtesy of our
precedents."
Additionally, this dissenter stated that jury
discrimination practices displayed in a now infamous
video-taped training session at the Philadelphia DAs
Office gave "a view of the culture" of that office during
the 1980s when Abu-Jamal was tried.
This dissenter criticized his two colleagues for failing
to make the obvious connection between the discrimination
instruction given at the taped session and discriminatory
practices used by Philadelphia prosecutors before, during
and after the 1980s.
"Indeed, given that Abu-Jamal's trial preceded Batson, it
is not far-fetched to argue that the culture of
discrimination was even worse," the dissenter declared.
Previously, the Third Circuit ordered new federal trial
court hearings to collect more evidence to enable full and
fair determinations on jury discrimination claims.
The Third Circuit's ruling rejected that procedure for
Abu-Jamal.
MAJOR FLAWS IN COURT RULINGS
This practice of creating new court standards to only
apply to Abu-Jamal was criticized in an Amnesty
International report of the Abu-Jamal case controversy
released in 2001.
AI criticized the Pa Supreme Court for altering its prior
rulings - precedents - to reach results against Abu-Jamal.
In 1986, for example, the Pa Supreme Court overturned a
Philadelphia death sentence after ruling that a prosecutor
named Joseph McGill made improper comments to the jury
during a trail presided over by Judge Albert Sabo.
McGill prosecuted Abu-Jamal in a 1982 trial presided over
by Judge Sabo.
Abu-Jamal's attorneys had alleged that McGill engaged in
jury selection discrimination - a claim documented by
evidence but a claim that the Third Circuit panel's
majority rejected. Sabo's rulings during that 1982 trail
aided this documentable discrimination.
During Abu-Jamal's '82 trial, McGill made the same
comments to the jury that the Pa high court faulted in its
1986 ruling. But when the Court upheld Abu-Jamal's
conviction in 1989 it refused to find any fault with
McGill making the same comments it had faulted him for in
its ruling three years before.
Then, in 1990, the Pa Supreme Court reinstated its 1986
standard regarding prosecutors making improper comments
like McGill made.
The Pa Supreme Court's flip-flopping on this form of
prosecutorial misconduct led Amnesty International to
state in its 2001 report that: "This contradictory series
of precedents leaves the disturbing impression that the
Court invented a new standard of procedure to apply it to
one case only: that of Mumia Abu-Jamal."
McGill's improper comments to the jury faulted by the Pa
Supreme Court in 1986 were an appeal issue before the
Third Circuit Court. That federal court panel found no
fault in McGill's comments, denying Abu-Jamal relief he
should have received if those federal appeals judges
fairly followed established law.
The Third Circuit panel also rejected allegations that
Judge Sabo was biased during a major 1995 appeals hearing.
Sabo's biased antics during that 1995 proceeding were so
outrageous this misconduct provoked strong, caustic
criticisms from even Philadelphia's normally
anti-Abu-Jamal media. An August 1995 editorial in the
Philadelphia Inquirer blasted Sabo's "injudicious conduct"
that included verbally badgering Abu-Jamal's attorneys and
even briefly jailing one of those attorneys for objecting
to one of his improper rulings.
Scores of newspaper articles from the New York Times to
the ultra-conservative/law-&-order Washington Times
reported on Sabo's pro-prosecution bias at that '95 appeal
hearing.
The Pa Supreme Court curtly dismissed this widespread
journalistic criticism by contending that the "view of a
handful of journalists" did not convince that Court of
Sabo's bias.
Five of the seven Pa Supreme Court justices that upheld
Abu-Jamal's conviction in 1998 received campaign
contributions from the lead group seeking Abu-Jamal's
execution, Philadelphia's police union, the Fraternal
Order of Police (FOP). One of those '98 justices was the
ex-DA of Philadelphia who as DA fought to execute
Abu-Jamal.
The Third Circuit agreed with the Pa Supreme Court's 1998
ruling that no evidence exists showing a "settled bias" by
Sabo against Abu-Jamal. The Third Circuit panel made this
assertion despite noting Sabo making a series of
"intemperate remarks" against Abu-Jamal and his defense
attorneys during that 1995 appeal hearing.
In another flip-flop ruling, the Pa Supreme Court in March
1988 found that a single statement uttered by the judge
during the murder trial of a former Pa State Trooper "was
extremely prejudicial" to this Trooper who killed a woman
inside a judge's office.
Where the Pa Supreme Court granted a new trial to that
killer cop because of that judge's one improper comment,
one year later the same Court found no fault in numerous
opinion laden statements Judge Sabo made during the
Abu-Jamal trial.
Sabo rejected requests to remove himself from hearing that
'95 appeal made by Abu-Jamal attorneys citing his
pro-prosecution during the 1982 trial. News articles,
editorials and commentaries all faulted Sabo for not
removing himself stating his failure recuse himself
graphically displayed unfairness in a proceeding where
fairness was desperately needed.
Journalistic watch-dogs normally hostile to Abu-Jamal
sought the face of fairness in that '95 proceeding both to
follow established law and to quell critics claiming
Sabo's unfairness against Abu-Jamal undermined fairness.
The federal panel's majority employed a legal procedure to
sidestep Sabo's clear and illegal bias - an Achilles Heel
of that federal ruling and this entire case.
It is incredible to contend that the widely condemned
Judge Sabo who presided during most trial court
proceedings in the Abu-Jamal's case did not violate any of
Abu-Jamal's rights at any time - despite his history of
violating rights in this case and other cases.
Judge Sabo handled 32 murder trials that ended in death
sentences before his retirement. But 24 of those sentences
in Sabo's courtroom had been vacated for errors as of June
2007 according to the American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU). Some of those death sentences were reverse due to
misconduct and/or mistakes by Sabo.
Sabo had once ordered prosecutors to pursue a death
penalty when the death penalty had been ruled illegal in
Pennsylvania. Sabo's ordering that illegal procedure led
to overturning that death sentence.
WHAT NEXT?
This March 2008 Third Circuit ruling leaves Abu-Jamal with
few legal options to challenge his conviction.
Abu-Jamal can appeal the panel's ruling to the entire
Third Circuit Court hoping for that full Court to overturn
the panel's ruling. Further, he can appeal any Third
Circuit ruling to the US Supreme Court.
There is a slight prospect of new action in Pa state
courts.
The Third Circuit issued an order stating Abu-Jamal will
receive a life-sentence unless Philadelphia prosecutors
hold a new penalty phase hearing seeking to reinstate his
death sentence within six months.
This mini-trial style hearing would allow Abu-Jamal to
present evidence, including new evidence of innocence that
has emerged like a flood since his first trial.
But it is unclear if prosecutors will pursue this route
that could create evidence and procedure that could secure
a new round of federal appeals for Abu-Jamal.
OVERLOOKED CRUX OF CASE
Sadly, the federal judges at the trial and appellate court
levels, like judges in Pa state courts, have refused to
uphold the most fundamental issue in the contentious
Abu-Jamal case: the right to a fair trial.
Critics of Abu-Jamal's conviction from Philadelphia's
Francisville section to France all feel he was denied a
fair trial.
Police and prosecutors blatantly engaging in misconduct to
secure a conviction destroys fair trial rights. A trial
judge openly biased towards police and prosecutors
destroys fair trial rights. Court applying the law in the
Abu-Jamal case differently from applied in other cases
destroys equal justice rights.
The Pa Supreme Court declared in a 1959 ruling involving a
Philadelphia murder case that every defendant is entitled
"to all the safeguards of a fair trial...even if evidence of
guilt piles as high a Mt Everest..."
Abu-Jamal was four-years-old when the Pa Supreme Court
issued that 1959 ruling against judges and prosecutors
cutting-corners during a trial.
Abundant evidence documents that corners-cut by the
prosecutor and judge during Abu-Jamal's trial and by
judges during his appeals corrupted his rights to a fair
trial and equal justice - rights guaranteed by the US
Constitution.
In June 2007, state courts in Pennsylvania overturned the
200th death penalty case since 1978 when that state
reinstated executions, the ACLU stated.
It is incredible to contend that 200 death penalty cases
contained errors egregious enough to be vacated but not a
single element in the Abu-Jamal case warrants either a new
hearing or a new trial.
-The End-
regarding Mumia Abu-Jamal
by Linn Washington Jr.
Observations and analysis of Linn Washington Jr. on the
federal Third Circuit ruling in the Mumia Abu-Jamal case
issued on March 27, 2008. Washington, is a journalist and
university professor in Philadelphia who has written
extensively about the contentious case since Abu-Jamal's
arrest in December 1981.
OVERVIEW
The long awaited ruling by the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals in the Mumia Abu-Jamal case released on March 27,
2008 again displays the dismaying pattern of US courts
ignoring precedent to deny relief to this death row
journalist whose plight generates international support.
Precedent in American law means courts following previous
court rulings when determining specific legal issues.
Precedent is the bedrock of American law.
America law requires courts to follow precedent unless
significant evidence and/or compelling rationales
necessitate changing precedent.
This Third Circuit ruling changes precedent. This ruling
changes precedent by applying legal procedures in a highly
questionable manner to dismiss compelling evidence of
injustice against Abu-Jamal.
The Third Circuit did uphold the elimination of
Abu-Jamal's death sentence. This is no victory because the
ruling upheld his conviction thus condemning Abu-Jamal to
life in prison.
This ruling refused to grant Abu-Jamal a new hearing or
new trial on three compelling issues: prosecutors using
racism to exclude African Americans from the jury during
Abu-Jamal's 1982 trial; the prosecutor making improper
comments to that '82 jury at the end of the trial; and
pro-prosecution bias by the '82 trial judge during a 1995
appeals hearing.
The Third Circuit previously granted relief to persons
convicted of murder in Philadelphia after ruling that
Philadelphia prosecutors had illegally excluded African
Americans from juries.
However, in this Abu-Jamal case ruling, the court found no
fault in evidence of exclusion of African Americans from
the jury in his 1982 trial.
Curiously, the evidence of exclusion at Abu-Jamal's trial
is of equal or greater magnitude than proof of exclusion
previously found acceptable for relief by the Third
Circuit.
These previous rulings on jury discrimination formed the
precedent on that issue for the Third Circuit.
That precedent stated it is wrong for prosecutors to
discriminate against even one black potential juror.
Additionally, that precedent stated defendants did not
have to object to jury selection discrimination by
prosecutors immediately when it occurred.
Yet, this ruling reversed precedent on those two points of
legal procedure.
A week before this Abu-Jamal ruling, the US Supreme Court
granted relief to a death row inmate in Louisiana because
of a discriminatory jury selection process. That Supreme
Court ruling was written by a Justice on that court who
formerly served on the Third Circuit.
That Justice, Samuel Alito, had approved relief to
Philadelphia murder defendants due to discriminatory jury
selection practices by prosecutors. Alito, in a February
2005 Third Circuit ruling, stated prosecutors commit a
violation by removing "any black juror because" of their
race - a position similar to the position contained in
that recent US Supreme Court ruling he authored.
THIRD CIRCUIT RULING
The Third Circuit's ruling rested on a procedural finding
by two of the three judges on this appeal's court panel.
This finding stated that lawyers for Abu-Jamal during the
1982 trial and the 1995 appeal hearing failed to follow
the procedures legally required to properly raise the
issue of prosecutors improperly using racism during the
jury selection process.
The panel's majority asserted that "Abu-Jamal has
forfeited his Batson claim by failing to make a timely
objection" to improper procedures by prosecutors
referencing the US Supreme Court's 1986 Batson ruling that
outlaws the exclusion of black jurors for reasons rooted
in racism.
Philadelphia area author and investigative reporter Dave
Lindorff notes the absurdity of holding Abu-Jamal's lawyer
responsible for not strictly following procedures during
the 1982 trial that the US Supreme Court did not create
until four years later in that 1986 Batson case.
No lawyer (or judge) in the United States could predicted
what procedure the US Supreme Court would order four years
in the future observes Lindorff, author of the seminal
2003 book on the Abu-Jamal case: "Killing Time..."
In reaching this conclusion against Abu-Jamal's jury
discrimination claim, that Third Circuit panel's majority
created a new standard for persons raising Batson claims
in that court.
This standard requires that a Batson violation claim must
be raised at the time of jury selection -- a
contemporaneous objection.
Interestingly, in reaching this conclusion of procedural
errors by Abu-Jamal's attorney, the panel's majority
failed to note that this lawyer at 1982 trial was unfairly
thrust into the jury selection process after that process
was underway without the opportunity to do any
preparation.
The trial judge granted the prosecutor's request to remove
Abu-Jamal from selecting his own jury, a decision without
merit that unfairly benefited the prosecutor and stripped
Abu-Jamal of his right to represent himself. Plus, this
action aggravated tensions between Abu-Jamal and his
attorney.
Further, the panel's majority faulted an Abu-Jamal lawyer
for not properly raising the jury selection racism issue
during Abu-Jamal's first appeal in the late 1989s to the
Pa Supreme Court without acknowledging a major error
committed by the lawyer who filed that appeal.
That attorney prepared that appeal without ever reviewing
the trial transcript.
There is no way that attorney could have prepared a
legally valid appeal without knowing what specifically had
happened at trial. (That appeal attorney was also
suffering from what proved to be a fatal brain tumor, a
medical condition that impaired that attorney's cognitive
abilities.)
In creating this new standard, the panel's majority makes
it harder to prove Batson violations. Plus, this standard
changes that court's precedent on procedures needed to
raise Batson claims.
The judge who dissented from his two colleagues faulted
them for creating this new standard, a standard not
ordered by the US Supreme Court.
"This case's newly created contemporaneous objection
rule...goes against the grain of our prior actions, as our
Court has addressed Batson challenges on the merits
without requiring that an objection be made during jury
selection in order to preserve" future appellate review,
the dissenter said.
This judge, speaking specifically to changing precedent,
said since Third Circuit precedent did "...not have a
federal contemporaneous objection rule...I see no reason why
we should not afford Abu-Jamal the courtesy of our
precedents."
Additionally, this dissenter stated that jury
discrimination practices displayed in a now infamous
video-taped training session at the Philadelphia DAs
Office gave "a view of the culture" of that office during
the 1980s when Abu-Jamal was tried.
This dissenter criticized his two colleagues for failing
to make the obvious connection between the discrimination
instruction given at the taped session and discriminatory
practices used by Philadelphia prosecutors before, during
and after the 1980s.
"Indeed, given that Abu-Jamal's trial preceded Batson, it
is not far-fetched to argue that the culture of
discrimination was even worse," the dissenter declared.
Previously, the Third Circuit ordered new federal trial
court hearings to collect more evidence to enable full and
fair determinations on jury discrimination claims.
The Third Circuit's ruling rejected that procedure for
Abu-Jamal.
MAJOR FLAWS IN COURT RULINGS
This practice of creating new court standards to only
apply to Abu-Jamal was criticized in an Amnesty
International report of the Abu-Jamal case controversy
released in 2001.
AI criticized the Pa Supreme Court for altering its prior
rulings - precedents - to reach results against Abu-Jamal.
In 1986, for example, the Pa Supreme Court overturned a
Philadelphia death sentence after ruling that a prosecutor
named Joseph McGill made improper comments to the jury
during a trail presided over by Judge Albert Sabo.
McGill prosecuted Abu-Jamal in a 1982 trial presided over
by Judge Sabo.
Abu-Jamal's attorneys had alleged that McGill engaged in
jury selection discrimination - a claim documented by
evidence but a claim that the Third Circuit panel's
majority rejected. Sabo's rulings during that 1982 trail
aided this documentable discrimination.
During Abu-Jamal's '82 trial, McGill made the same
comments to the jury that the Pa high court faulted in its
1986 ruling. But when the Court upheld Abu-Jamal's
conviction in 1989 it refused to find any fault with
McGill making the same comments it had faulted him for in
its ruling three years before.
Then, in 1990, the Pa Supreme Court reinstated its 1986
standard regarding prosecutors making improper comments
like McGill made.
The Pa Supreme Court's flip-flopping on this form of
prosecutorial misconduct led Amnesty International to
state in its 2001 report that: "This contradictory series
of precedents leaves the disturbing impression that the
Court invented a new standard of procedure to apply it to
one case only: that of Mumia Abu-Jamal."
McGill's improper comments to the jury faulted by the Pa
Supreme Court in 1986 were an appeal issue before the
Third Circuit Court. That federal court panel found no
fault in McGill's comments, denying Abu-Jamal relief he
should have received if those federal appeals judges
fairly followed established law.
The Third Circuit panel also rejected allegations that
Judge Sabo was biased during a major 1995 appeals hearing.
Sabo's biased antics during that 1995 proceeding were so
outrageous this misconduct provoked strong, caustic
criticisms from even Philadelphia's normally
anti-Abu-Jamal media. An August 1995 editorial in the
Philadelphia Inquirer blasted Sabo's "injudicious conduct"
that included verbally badgering Abu-Jamal's attorneys and
even briefly jailing one of those attorneys for objecting
to one of his improper rulings.
Scores of newspaper articles from the New York Times to
the ultra-conservative/law-&-order Washington Times
reported on Sabo's pro-prosecution bias at that '95 appeal
hearing.
The Pa Supreme Court curtly dismissed this widespread
journalistic criticism by contending that the "view of a
handful of journalists" did not convince that Court of
Sabo's bias.
Five of the seven Pa Supreme Court justices that upheld
Abu-Jamal's conviction in 1998 received campaign
contributions from the lead group seeking Abu-Jamal's
execution, Philadelphia's police union, the Fraternal
Order of Police (FOP). One of those '98 justices was the
ex-DA of Philadelphia who as DA fought to execute
Abu-Jamal.
The Third Circuit agreed with the Pa Supreme Court's 1998
ruling that no evidence exists showing a "settled bias" by
Sabo against Abu-Jamal. The Third Circuit panel made this
assertion despite noting Sabo making a series of
"intemperate remarks" against Abu-Jamal and his defense
attorneys during that 1995 appeal hearing.
In another flip-flop ruling, the Pa Supreme Court in March
1988 found that a single statement uttered by the judge
during the murder trial of a former Pa State Trooper "was
extremely prejudicial" to this Trooper who killed a woman
inside a judge's office.
Where the Pa Supreme Court granted a new trial to that
killer cop because of that judge's one improper comment,
one year later the same Court found no fault in numerous
opinion laden statements Judge Sabo made during the
Abu-Jamal trial.
Sabo rejected requests to remove himself from hearing that
'95 appeal made by Abu-Jamal attorneys citing his
pro-prosecution during the 1982 trial. News articles,
editorials and commentaries all faulted Sabo for not
removing himself stating his failure recuse himself
graphically displayed unfairness in a proceeding where
fairness was desperately needed.
Journalistic watch-dogs normally hostile to Abu-Jamal
sought the face of fairness in that '95 proceeding both to
follow established law and to quell critics claiming
Sabo's unfairness against Abu-Jamal undermined fairness.
The federal panel's majority employed a legal procedure to
sidestep Sabo's clear and illegal bias - an Achilles Heel
of that federal ruling and this entire case.
It is incredible to contend that the widely condemned
Judge Sabo who presided during most trial court
proceedings in the Abu-Jamal's case did not violate any of
Abu-Jamal's rights at any time - despite his history of
violating rights in this case and other cases.
Judge Sabo handled 32 murder trials that ended in death
sentences before his retirement. But 24 of those sentences
in Sabo's courtroom had been vacated for errors as of June
2007 according to the American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU). Some of those death sentences were reverse due to
misconduct and/or mistakes by Sabo.
Sabo had once ordered prosecutors to pursue a death
penalty when the death penalty had been ruled illegal in
Pennsylvania. Sabo's ordering that illegal procedure led
to overturning that death sentence.
WHAT NEXT?
This March 2008 Third Circuit ruling leaves Abu-Jamal with
few legal options to challenge his conviction.
Abu-Jamal can appeal the panel's ruling to the entire
Third Circuit Court hoping for that full Court to overturn
the panel's ruling. Further, he can appeal any Third
Circuit ruling to the US Supreme Court.
There is a slight prospect of new action in Pa state
courts.
The Third Circuit issued an order stating Abu-Jamal will
receive a life-sentence unless Philadelphia prosecutors
hold a new penalty phase hearing seeking to reinstate his
death sentence within six months.
This mini-trial style hearing would allow Abu-Jamal to
present evidence, including new evidence of innocence that
has emerged like a flood since his first trial.
But it is unclear if prosecutors will pursue this route
that could create evidence and procedure that could secure
a new round of federal appeals for Abu-Jamal.
OVERLOOKED CRUX OF CASE
Sadly, the federal judges at the trial and appellate court
levels, like judges in Pa state courts, have refused to
uphold the most fundamental issue in the contentious
Abu-Jamal case: the right to a fair trial.
Critics of Abu-Jamal's conviction from Philadelphia's
Francisville section to France all feel he was denied a
fair trial.
Police and prosecutors blatantly engaging in misconduct to
secure a conviction destroys fair trial rights. A trial
judge openly biased towards police and prosecutors
destroys fair trial rights. Court applying the law in the
Abu-Jamal case differently from applied in other cases
destroys equal justice rights.
The Pa Supreme Court declared in a 1959 ruling involving a
Philadelphia murder case that every defendant is entitled
"to all the safeguards of a fair trial...even if evidence of
guilt piles as high a Mt Everest..."
Abu-Jamal was four-years-old when the Pa Supreme Court
issued that 1959 ruling against judges and prosecutors
cutting-corners during a trial.
Abundant evidence documents that corners-cut by the
prosecutor and judge during Abu-Jamal's trial and by
judges during his appeals corrupted his rights to a fair
trial and equal justice - rights guaranteed by the US
Constitution.
In June 2007, state courts in Pennsylvania overturned the
200th death penalty case since 1978 when that state
reinstated executions, the ACLU stated.
It is incredible to contend that 200 death penalty cases
contained errors egregious enough to be vacated but not a
single element in the Abu-Jamal case warrants either a new
hearing or a new trial.
-The End-
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages