May 16 NEW YORK: Death penalty politics So what were Monday's deliberations by the state Senate all about, really? A rather lopsided vote to restore the death penalty, at least for the convicted killers of police officers, surely qualifies as a show of force. There's no question where the Senate's Republican majority, and 4 Democrats as well, stand in response to what death penalty proponents portray as open season on police officers. As Sen. Martin Golden, R-Brooklyn, put it, "There is evil walking on the streets of the city and state of New York, endangering the lives of every single police officer." Still, a sense of futility prevails as well. There's enough opposition to restoring the death penalty, even for criminals vile enough to gun down the very people committed to protecting the larger public, among the Democrats who dominate the state Assembly that Speaker Sheldon Silver isn't inclined to so much as bring the matter up for a vote. Nor is Governor Spitzer pushing for a change in the law, despite his support for capital punishment under such circumstances. The arguments against the death penalty don't change, not even with 9 officers dead in the line of duty in less than two years, by a Senate count. Punishing killers by taking their own lives might appeal to certain, and understandable, instincts but it of course can't compensate for the irreplaceable loss of another life. Reserving capital punishment for the tiny percentage of killers who take the lives of police officers might well have the families of other murder victims asking why the law treats their losses differently. Nor is the death penalty the deterrent that its proponents claim it is, and were saying again on the Senate floor on Monday. That's countered by statistics showing states where the death penalty is enforced often have higher murder rates than those without the death penalty. Sen. Martin Connor, D-Brooklyn Heights, addressed that issue head on. "I don't believe these vicious, vicious sociopaths are deterred" by a death penalty, he said. To re-enact the death penalty -- for anyone, under any circumstances -- would raise the risk of perhaps the worst miscarriage of justice of all. Why would New York want to be in a position where an innocent man or woman could be put to death? Numerous death row inmates have been exonerated by DNA evidence in recent years. Wrongful capital murder convictions were so rampant in Illinois, for example, that then-Gov. George Ryan was compelled to impose a moratorium on executions 7 years ago. The Senate's approval of a narrowly constructed death penalty bill, regardless of the sentiments of the Assembly or the governor, leaves New York with the harshest and most unrelenting punishment of all for murders of any sort already on the books. That's life in prison without any possibility of parole. It's a fitting response to Mr. Golden and his call "to vote for those that have died, those families that have lost loved ones ... to do what's right for officers and their families." That would be to continue to enforce the existing law. (source: Times Union) USA: Famous last words When I was in the Funeral Business here in Gulf Breeze, I used to get notices on strange tombstones and famous last words. It has always been of interest to me to know just what the last words of a person were, what did they leave this world saying?! Many of them are not so famous, as my uncle Elwood, when his last words were, "Hold my beer and watch this!" However, many people have had meaningful things to say just before they assumed room temperature. This article is not about them! When the doctor asked my old buddy and Southern humorist Lewis Grizzard if he had anything he wanted to say before he "went under" for his third heart operation, Lewis thought for a second and said, "When does the last train leave for Albuquerque?' He never came to. I will always wonder if he knew those were going to be his last words, if he would have said something else, probably not! The last words of people that know they are going to die are interesting as well. In the case of convicted killers, some are quite memorable. When George Appel, a murderer, was sitting in the electric chair in New York in 1928 he said, "Well, gentlemen you are about to see a baked appel!" Now that's funny, I don't care if he died right after it or not! "Remember, the death penalty is murder." That was Robert Drew right before lethal injection in Texas, August 2, 1994. He knew what he was talking about, in his case anyway! "How about this for a headline for tomorrow's paper? French fries." Those were the last words of James French, as he sat in the electric chair in Oklahoma in1966. Now that is a sense of humor! You gotta love a killer like that! Most of us remember the last words of Gary Gilmore, the last man executed by firing squad in Utah, Jan. 17, 1977 "Let's do it!" They did! And about those last meals, "I did not get my Spaghetti-O's, I got spaghetti. I want the press to know this." Those were the last words of Thomas J. Grasso, executed by injection, Oklahoma, 1995. I'd say old Tom didn't give those words a lot of thought. I wonder if the press cared!? "You can be a king or a street sweeper, but everyone dances with the Grim Reaper." Robert Alton Harris, April 21, 1992, executed in California's gas chamber. He was totally correct, but it's hard to dance in a gas chamber! Then there are a few that leave us with courage and hero status, as in "Take a step forward, lads. It will be easier that way." Those were the last words of Erskine Childers, Irish patriot just before he was slain by a firing squad, November 24, 1922. This man died for everyone that believed in him. And finally our great American patriots, my favorite being Nathan Hale when he said, "It is the duty of every good officer to obey any orders given him by his commander-in-chief. I did that, now I die for my country. "He was then shot by a British firing squad for being a spy, in 1776. He is forever a hero to us all. I wonder if any of us will have time to think about what our last words will be. If I do, I'm going to say, "Damn, what a ride!" Just thought you'd like to know... (source: T. Bechtol, Source, Gulf Breeze News) NORTH CAROLINA: Charges' dismissal upheld----State Bar's rule on bringing charges for felonious conduct deemed invalid The disciplinary arm of the N.C. State Bar was correct when it cited technicalities to dismiss ethics charges against 2 former Union County prosecutors, the state Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday. The State Bar had charged Kenneth Honeycutt and Scott Brewer with lying, cheating and withholding evidence in a 1996 death penalty case. Last year, Honeycutt and Brewer twice got the charges dismissed by the bar's Disciplinary Hearing Commission, a panel that sits as judge and jury in disciplinary cases. The panel first ruled that defense lawyers in the murder case had missed a deadline for filing a grievance against the 2 prosecutors. The bar tried to reinstate the charges, arguing that Honeycutt and Brewer had committed felonies such as obstruction of justice and subornation of perjury. The bar's rules say there is no deadline to bring charges of felonious misconduct against lawyers. But the panel deemed that rule invalid because the clerk's office of the state Supreme Court didn't publish the rule in its minutes after the rule was passed. The outcome is harsh, but rules are rules, a unanimous Court of Appeals panel concluded. "We do not take lightly allegations of such serious professional misconduct, but the language of [the State Bar rule] compels the above legal conclusions," wrote Judge Linda McGee. Judges Ann Marie Calabria and Linda Stephens joined the opinion. Honeycutt, the former district attorney in Union County, is now in private practice. Brewer is a District Court judge in Rockingham. The case stems from the trial of Jonathan Hoffman, who was sentenced to death for the robbery and murder of Danny Cook, a jewelry-store owner in Marshville, southeast of Charlotte. Hoffman's case was the subject of a 2003 article in The News & Observer. Hoffman won a new trial in April 2004; he is still awaiting retrial. The key evidence against Hoffman was provided by a cousin, Johnell Porter, who was facing long prison terms in South Carolina and in federal prison. The bar said that Honeycutt agreed to reward Porter for his testimony at trial with immunity from state and federal prosecutions, money and a reduction in his federal sentence. Porter said in a 2006 interview that he made up the testimony about Hoffman to get the deal. Porter's prison sentences were reduced by at least 15 years. He was not prosecuted for at least a dozen serious crimes in Charlotte. And he pocketed several thousand dollars in reward money. The bar charged that Honeycutt and Brewer hid the deal from the jury, the trial judge and Hoffman's lawyers, lied to Judge William Helms and concealed the deal by altering documents they gave to the judge. Jim Maxwell, Brewer's defense attorney, said his client was relieved by Tuesday's ruling. "My client has always been willing to see it tried on the merits," Maxwell said. (source: News & Observer) ***************** N.C. serial killers agree----Executing murderers is racist It sounds so terrible, so completely and grossly unfair. The sponsors of the North Carolina Racial Justice Act and the state chapter of the NAACP want you to believe that the death penalty is handed out in an utterly racist manner in this state. Their statistics sound convincing. While only 22 % of the state's population is African-American, some 53 % of the state's death row inmates are black. So juries and prosecutors must be horribly racist, they conclude. What we need to do to make it fair, Racial Justice Act sponsors say, is to commute death sentences, no matter how horrendous the crime or the circumstances that surrounded it, if the inmate can prove race played a factor in his sentencing. And incredibly, according to this legislation, an inmate only needs to show that someone of his race is statistically more likely to get a death sentence in this state and they're off the hook. It's the ultimate get out of jail free card, and if the North Carolina Racial Justice Act passes, both black and white death row inmates will be able to use it to get their sentences commuted. Consider statistics from a different source. According to the FBI's 2005 Uniform Crime Report, the latest available, it's white inmates who are actually being discriminated against. While 38 % of those arrested for murder in this state are white, 39 % of those on death row are white. See? Discrimination! Meanwhile, according to the FBI stats, 57 % of those arrested for murder here are African-American while only 53 % of those on death row are. No fair! Guess we'll just have stick to executing Asians and American Indians. Almost three percent of those arrested for murder in North Carolina self-identify as American Indians, yet only 1.5 % of those on death row are American Indians, so clearly we need to kill more of them -- to make it fair, of course. The beauty of this bill, from an axe murderer's perspective, is that it is retroactive and there are no limits on which statistics you can use. So if you don't like the 2005 FBI statistics, you could just use the 2004 statistics. Reporting to the FBI is voluntary, though most law enforcement agencies increasingly do it. In 2004, 380 North Carolina law enforcement agencies reported homicides to the FBI. In 2005, 448 did. That means the stats fluctuate annually, so there's plenty of statistical "diversity" to choose from. If a serial killer still can't get the results he wants from those statistics, there's always the murder incarceration statistics kept by the North Carolina Department of Correction, which can be used as a last resort. This is the single most idiotic piece of state legislation I've seen come down the pike in years, and that includes the recent Mike Nifong Protection Act (see my April 25 column.) Incredibly, some Mecklenburg County legislators have hopped on board to sponsor it. Mecklenburg sponsors include Republican House member Ruth Samuelson and Democrats Martha Alexander, Pete Cunningham and Tricia Cotham. The bill is so outrageous it really has to be read to be believed. (Go to http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/ and use the bill text search.) It even has a back door clause. If your lawyer is too drunk or incompetent to use the above-mentioned statistics to get you out of the death penalty, he or she can use the racial make-up of the jury that convicted you. If your jury didn't match the state's demographic make-up, you can argue that you've been discriminated against. Incredibly, the sponsors of this bill would rather have your prosecutor and defense attorney pick a racially diverse jury rather than the most fair and impartial one. I guess that means that prosecutors should place more importance on the race of a juror who says "kill them all and let God sort them out" than on his bad attitude? The problem, as anyone who has witnessed a criminal trial knows, is that the prosecutor and the defense attorney both play a part in selecting who will be on the jury through the use of pre-emptory challenges. So if your prosecutor doesn't do you the favor of discriminating against you during jury selection so you can get out of your death sentence later, your own attorney can cover that and then claim later that he or she discriminated against you. Insta discrimination! The most offensive part of this bill, from a victim's perspective, is the line that contains the words "irrespective of statutory factors." It essentially says that statistical proof that those of your race have been discriminated against in sentencing will trump every other aggravating factor in determining whether your death sentence is overturned. So you robbed your victim before you tortured her for 3 days and stabbed her 43 times? No biggie. That's just a "statutory factor." After the Nifong debacle, I thought there was nothing state leaders could do to embarrass this state worse before the nation on Court TV. As usual, I've underestimated them. So from now on, I guess it's "Death to the Indians!" (source: Tara Servatius, Creative Loafing) TENNESSEE: Judge allows state to perform Workman autopsy A federal judge ruled that the state is allowed to perform an autopsy on the body of executed death row inmate Philip Workman. Workman and his family had objected to the autopsy, citing Workman's religious beliefs that call for non-desecration of the body after death. "While Mr. Workmans religious beliefs are sincere and worthy of consideration, they do not outweigh the medical examiners interest in confirming that the manner of death complied with the requirements of the law, U.S. Judge Todd J. Campbell wrote in an order issued on Tuesday. State officials want to perform the autopsy and obtain blood and other fluids from Workman's body to confirm that the execution was properly done. Workman's brother, Terry Workman, testified earlier week that his brother, a Seventh Day Adventist, gave him power of attorney over his body and told him that he didn't want to be autopsied or have chemicals or fluids removed from his body. (source: The Tennessean) PENNSYLVANIA: Pennsylvania Governor Rendell Signs Execution Warrant Governor Edward G. Rendell today signed a warrant for the execution by lethal injection of Miguel Rios of Philadelphia County. Rios's execution is scheduled for Thursday, July 12. In October 1994, Rios was sentenced to death for the 1st-degree murder of 21-year-old Jose Ortiz during a burglary at Ortiz's home. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the sentence on Oct. 30, 1996. 2 execution warrants were issued, but the execution was stayed each time; 1st, to allow certiorari proceedings in the U.S. Supreme Court; and 2nd, to allow post-conviction proceedings in the Court of Common Pleas. Post-conviction relief was denied by the trial court on March 21, 2001 and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed that decision on April 18, 2007, thus lifting the 2nd stay. Rios, 54, is an inmate at the State Correctional Institution at Graterford. Governor Rendell has now signed 68 execution warrants. (source: Pennsylvania Office of the Governor) ***************** The Final Showdown----Mumia Case Reaches Its Climax The case of death row prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal, now a quarter of a century long, is heading to a climax this Thursday in a hearing before a 3-judge panel of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. It is a hearing that could result in a new trial for the Philadelphia journalist and former Black Panther, or possibly in a new date with the executioner. The wide range of possible outcomes of this hearing results from the fact that Abu-Jamal and the Philadelphia District Attorney have filed cross-appeals in the case. Abu-Jamal, convicted in 1982 for the 1981 slaying of white Philadelphia Police Officer Daniel Faulkner during an arrest of Abu-Jamal's younger brother William, is appealing his conviction. He is arguing that his jury was unconstitutionally purged of black jurors by the prosecutor, who used peremptory challenges to bar 10 or 11 black jurors from being seated, though all had said that they could vote for a death penalty. He is also appealing his conviction on the ground that the prosecutor, Joseph McGill, improperly diminished the jury's sense of responsibility for their verdict by telling them that a guilty verdict would "not be final" since there would be "appeal after appeal." The DA's office, meanwhile, has appealed a 2001 decision by Federal District Judge William Yohn overturning Abu-Jamal's death sentence-a ruling that if sustained, converts Abu-Jamal's penalty to life in prison without possibility of parole. It is impossible to second-guess what the 3 judges sitting on this appeal will decide on any of the claims before them, but looking at their prior decisions, all three of the judges, who include Chief Judge Anthony Scirica and Judge Robert Cowen, both Reagan appointees, and Judge Thomas Ambro, a Clinton appointee have, during their time on the Third Circuit, overturned capital convictions based upon the same claim Abu-Jamal is making about race-based exclusion of jurors by the prosecution. In his federal habeas appeal of his conviction-the so-called Batson claim regarding jury bias--Abu-Jamal's attorneys noted that in a city that is 44 percent African-American, his jury initially had only three black members (one was removed before the start of the trial, under questionable circumstances also possibly relating to judicial bias, leaving only 2). Abu-Jamal further presented evidence that his mostly white jury was the result of a pattern of racism in the city's justice system. Prosecutor McGill, who used 11 of his permitted 15 peremptory challenges (challenges to bar jurors for which no reason has to be provided), to remove black jurors otherwise qualified to sit, had a record over the course of 6 capital cases between 1977 and 1986, of striking 74 % of potential black jurors while striking only 25 % of white jurors. Furthermore, defense data show that over the same period, during which Ed Rendell was Philadelphia's district attorney, prosecutors working under his direction collectively used their peremptory challenges to eliminate black jurors 58 % of the time, compared to only 22 percent of the time for white jurors. If the appellate court decides that this damning statistical evidence shows or suggests a pattern of racism in jury selection, it would be bound to either order a new trial, or to remand the case back to Judge Yohn for a full hearing on the jury bias issue. This would appear to offer Abu-Jamal his best chance for a new trial. If the judges vote the way each of them has voted in other similar cases, it could happen. A second possibility for a new trial would be McGill's clearly inappropriate summation to the jury, in which he essentially told them to forget about "proof beyond a reasonable doubt," and which the judge, who still posthumously holds the national record for death penalty convictions (31), allowed to go unchallenged. Many a death sentence has been overturned for just such prosecutorial misconduct, but to date, neither the Third Circuit nor the US Supreme Court has overturned a conviction on the basis of such comments. Still, it remains a possible avenue for a reversal and a new trial. A 3rd avenue of federal appeal by Abu-Jamal argues that his initial appeal of his conviction, called a Post-Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) hearing, was constitutionally flawed because the judge-the same Albert Sabo who tried him originally-was biased in favor of the prosecution. Local newspaper editorials made that observation during the hearing. But more importantly, the PCRA hearing transcript shows that Sabo refused to grant any subpoenas to the defense to compel witness testimony, and that the judge repeatedly cut off lines of questioning of witnesses by defense attorneys when it appeared they were about to undermine the case. One witness who told of being pressured to lie at the trial, found herself arrested in the courtroom immediately following her testimony, while she was still on the witness stand. She was led off in handcuffs with the judge's blessing on a check-kiting charge, despite a pledge by her attorney to have her appear on the charge-normally a routine procedure. If the appellate panel rules in favor of this claim, Abu-Jamal would not get a new trial, but would get a reopened or a new PCRA, probably in federal instead of state court. At such a hearing, new evidence of innocence could be presented, and witnesses from the original trial and the earlier PCRA hearing could be further questioned and old testimony challenged. Abu-Jamal, while still held in solitary confinement on Pennsylvania's death row at the insistence of Philadelphia District Attorney Lynn Abraham, is at this moment not facing the death penalty. Federal District Judge Yohn ruled in 2001 that a poorly worded jury verdict form and equally poor instructions from Judge Sabo during the trial's penalty phase left jurors thinking, incorrectly, that they could consider no mitigating circumstances in deciding on his sentence unless they all agreed on it. In fact, under current law, if any one juror finds a mitigating circumstance, it has to be weighed in their collective decision, which must itself be unanimous for a death penalty. While it is unlikely that the Third Circuit judges will overturn Judge Yohn's revocation of Abu-Jamal's death sentence, which was well reasoned and based upon solid US Supreme Court precedent, the DA's office is making the effort, claiming that the precedent doesn't apply in his case. In fact, over the course of Abu-Jamal's more than two-decade-long appeals process, the courts have shown a willingness to create special exceptions that apply only to Abu-Jamal. One example of what might be called "The Mumia Rule" occurred in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The state's top judges in 1986 overturned a death sentence in 1986 where McGill, the same prosecutor in Abu-Jamal's case, had made the same closing statement to jurors at the conclusion of a murder trial presided over by Judge Sabo, the same trial judge who presided in Abu-Jamal's case. The state's top court, declaring that the prosecutor's language had "minimize[ed] the jury's sense of responsibility for a verdict of death," ordered a new trial. 3 years later in 1989, despite this precedent, the Court reversed itself, though, upholding Abu-Jamal's conviction. Eleven years later, Pennsylvania's highest court reversed track again, barring such language by prosecutors "in all future trials." Another example of this judicial "special handling" where Abu-Jamal's case is concerned, involves the right of allocution the right of the convicted to make a statement without challenge before sentencing. One month before initially upholding Abu-Jamal's conviction in March 1989, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a ruling stating the right of allocution is of "ancient origin" and any failure to permit a defendant to plead for mercy required reversal of sentence. Abu-Jamal's appeal claimed Judge Sabo, by allowing the prosecutor to question Abu-Jamal on the stand after the convicted defendant had made such a statement to jurors, violated his allocution right during the '82 trial. The state's high court, however for the first time in its history ruled that the "right of allocution does not exist in the penalty phase of capital murder prosecution." This flip-flopping on allocution, acceptable language for prosecutors and other legal precedents led Amnesty International to conclude in its 2000 report on Abu-Jamal's case that the state's highest court improperly invents new standards of procedure "to apply it to one case only: that of Mumia Abu-Jamal." Justice, that is to say, has not always been blind in this case. Indeed, the Abu-Jamal case has always been as much about politics as it has been about law. During his sentencing hearing, Prosecutor McGill, over the strenuous objection of the defense, read from and questioned Abu-Jamal about a 12-year-old Philadelphia Inquirer article written about him when he had been just 15, in which he had quoted Mao Tse-tung as saying "power flows from the barrel of a gun." Although Abu-Jamal made it clear in the actual article, and during questioning by the prosecutor, that he was using that line to refer to the power of the police in Philadelphia in the early 1970s, the prosecutor told jurors that the child's words had referred to killing police. Since the trial, the Fraternal Order of Police, the national police union, has openly lobbied hard for Abu-Jamal's execution, endorsing judicial candidates who favor the death penalty, while opposing those who oppose it, and holding annual demonstrations supporting his death, and even working successfully to prevent Abu-Jamal from having his commentaries from prison broadcast on Philadelphia radio stations. On the other side, a movement condemning Abu-Jamal's conviction and demanding his freedom or a new trial has spread around the globe. Such political action has certainly played a role in the decisions made by Pennsylvania's politicized judges, all of whom are elected and must periodically return to face voters. But the prevailing view among attorneys is that such political pressures play a lesser role in the federal court system, where judges are generally better qualified and are appointed for life, and particularly at the appellate level, where most judges remain until they retire or die. One indication that the appellate court may not be so vulnerable to political pressure came in 1998, in a case brought by Abu-Jamal protesting the opening of his lawyer's correspondence with him in prison. Prison authorities had opened his lawyers' mail in 1995 and, learning of his defense strategy for an upcoming PCRA hearing, passed the news along to then Gov. Tom Ridge, who rushed through a death warrant. This meant Abu-Jamal was facing an execution date only weeks from the hearing-a situation Judge Sabo repeatedly used as an excuse for rushing the proceeding. The Third Circuit ruled that opening of inmates' legal mail was illegal. The Third Circuit also ruled in Abu-Jamal's favor in a case establishing his First Amendment right to write and publish from prison. And so this case, which began one cold dark morning in December 1981, now moves to what could be the final confrontation. However the 3 judge panel rules, history is likely to be made this Thursday in the legal showdown between Abu-Jamal's attorney Robert R. Bryan and Assistant District Attorney Hugh Burns, and by Third Circuit Judges Scirica, Ambro and Cowen. (source: CounterPunch; Dave Lindorff is the author of Killing Time: an Investigation into the Death Row Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal. His book of CounterPunch columns titled "This Can't be Happening!" is published by Common Courage Press. Lindorff's newest book is "The Case for Impeachment", co-authored by Barbara Olshansky. He can be reached at: dlindorff at yahoo.com LINN WASHINGTON, Jr. is a columnist for the "Philadelphia Tribune" and is an associate professor of journalism at Temple University) **************** Democracy Now interviews Linn Washington, Jr. about Mumia Abu-Jamal In Philadelphia, Mumia Abu-Jamal's legal team is preparing for a hearing that could decide the fate of the imprisoned former Black Panther. Abu-Jamal has been on death row for 25 years after being convicted of killing a police officer following a controversial trial before a predominantly-white jury. On Thursday, the Third Circuit Court Of Appeals will hear oral arguments to decide whether Mumia gets a new trial, life in prison without parole, or execution. Hundreds of supporters are planning to rally outside the courthouse. Philadelphia Court Hearing Could Decide Fate of Imprisoned Journalist Mumia Abu-Jamal In Philadelphia, Mumia Abu-Jamal's legal team is preparing for a hearing that could decide the fate of the imprisoned former Black Panther. Abu-Jamal has been on death row for 25 years after being convicted of killing a police officer following a controversial trial before a predominantly-white jury. On Thursday, the Third Circuit Court Of Appeals will hear oral arguments to decide whether Mumia gets a new trial, life in prison without parole, or execution. Hundreds of supporters are planning to rally outside the courthouse. We're joined by Linn Washington of the Philadelphia Tribune, and hear a recent audio commentary Mumia recorded behind bars. [includes rush transcript] In Philadelphia, Mumia Abu-Jamal's legal team is preparing for a hearing on Thursday that could decide the fate of the imprisoned former Black Panther. Abu-Jamal has been on death row for 25 years after being convicted of killing a police officer following a controversial trial before a predominantly white jury. On Thursday, the Third Circuit Court Of Appeals will hear oral arguments to decide whether Mumia gets a new trial, life in prison without parole, or execution. Hundreds of supporters including Danny Glover and Cynthia McKinney are planning to rally outside the courthouse. In a few minutes we will be joined in Philadelphia by Linn Washington, a columnist for the Philadelphia Tribune but first we turn to Mumia in his own words. Before he was jailed, Mumia was an award-winning journalist in Philadelphia. He continues his journalism behind bars and regularly records commentaries for the Prison Radio Project. * Mumia Abu-Jamal, audio essay, "Furor Over Politicizing Justice." Linn Washington joins us now in Philadelphia. * Linn Washington. Columnist for the Philadelphia Tribune and a journalism professor at Temple University. He has been following Mumia Abu-Jamal's case for the past 25 years. * Mumia Abu-Jamal, interview on Block Report radio program. AMY GOODMAN: In Philadelphia, Mumia Abu-Jamal's legal team is preparing for a hearing on Thursday that could decide the fate of the imprisoned former Black Panther. Mumia Abu-Jamal has been on death row for 25 years, after being convicted of killing a police officer following a controversial trial before a predominantly white jury. On Thursday, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments to decide whether Mumia Abu-Jamal gets a new trial, life in prison without parole or execution. Hundreds of supporters, including Danny Glover and Cynthia McKinney, are planning to rally outside the courthouse. In a few minutes, we'll be joined in Philadelphia by Linn Washington, a columnist for the Philadelphia Tribune and professor at Temple University. But first, we turn to Mumia Abu-Jamal in his own words. Before he was jailed, Mumia Abu-Jamal was an award-winning journalist in Philadelphia. He continues his journalism behind bars, regularly records commentaries for the Prison Radio Project. This essay is called "Furor Over Politicizing Justice." MUMIA ABU-JAMAL: As voices now rise over recent revelations of White House pressures to remove uncooperative US attorneys from their posts, protests over the politicizing of the Justice Department have approached the dimensions of a media firestorm. From the den, we may assume that US attorneys are supremely apolitical. They're but impartial officers of state power who do not deign to submit to the winding whims of politics nor the bile of bias. It is remarkable to see political appointees denounce the very practice of politics as if it were contagious disease. In truth, the Department of Justice isnt less political than other departments of government; it may even be more political. Who is prosecuted and for what is a political decision. Indeed, many of the removed US attorneys reportedly did not try death penalty cases with the enthusiasm that the Justice Department required. Aint that political? When the Justice Department targeted the former governor of Illinois, George Ryan, who made international news for his dismantling of that state's death row, wasn't that political? What of the recent indictments of the San Francisco Eight, former Black Panthers, some who have been subjected to torture both in the 70s and more recently in connection with an alleged 1971 attack on a San Francisco police station? Ain't that political? To suggest that a politically appointed official isn't subject to political pressure is like believing in the tooth fairy. It's OK if you're five years old, but not if you're an adult. Huey P. Newton, founder of the Black Panther Party, once said, "Everything is political," meaning how we live, what we eat, education, health, how we interact socially. All of these things are impacted by our political decisions. Now, none of this is to suggest that these removals ordered by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales weren't slimy. They're slimy as whale poop. But let's not even run amok with our unquestioned assumptions. Gonzales is the reincarnation of Nixons John Mitchell, the Watergate-era Attorney General who left the office in handcuffs. In fact, John Dean, a Nixon aide during the Watergate scandal, has written a book, the title of which aptly summarizes the present administration: Worse Than Watergate. Why no calls for Gonzales's resignation when news came out about FBI snooping on US citizens? For torture alone, he should be canned. The media, which was an accomplice in the crimes of invasion and occupation, now turns up the volume, because eight lawyers were fired. Doesn't this smack of classic class bias? Let's not rely on a fable. From death row, this is Mumia Abu-Jamal. AMY GOODMAN: And this is Democracy Now! Linn Washington now joins us in Philadelphia, columnist for the Philadelphia Tribune, journalism professor at Temple University, has been following Mumia Abu-Jamal's case for, well, the last quarter century. Welcome to Democracy Now!, Professor Washington. LINN WASHINGTON: Hi, Amy. How are you? AMY GOODMAN: It's good to have you with us. Talk about this hearing that will be taking place on Thursday. How significant is it? LINN WASHINGTON: Well, this is a very significant hearing, because it can determine whether Abu-Jamal finally gets a fair trial or if he's fast-tracked for that conveyor belt for execution. There's four basic issues here, one involving discriminatory practices in the selection of the jury. The other is the alleged bias of the trial judge during the 1995 appeals hearing, bias that, I must say, that independent journalists from mainstream news media around the country, including media that has been hostile to Abu-Jamal, felt was an absolute travesty in terms of the bias. And then there's 2 other really technical issues, one involving the jury verdict form and the other involving an argument that the prosecutor made to the jury to try to lessen their responsibility in finding Abu-Jamal liable for death, interestingly language that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court outlawed in 1986, re-imposed when Abu-Jamal had his first appeal hearing in 89, and then reversed itself again in 1990. It's ironic that you played that particular commentary by Abu-Jamal dealing with politicization of the justice system, because that is exactly what's happening in this case and has been a part of it for the last 25 years. AMY GOODMAN: Now, what about the appeals judge panel? Who are these judges? Why would this be different than any other time? LINN WASHINGTON: Well, for one thing, this particular court, or should I say the federal court system, has a better track record of being fair. The core problem with the Abu-Jamal case in terms of how the judiciary has handled this is that the judiciary has consistently failed to apply its own legal precedents. And to break that down in layman's terms, courts are supposed to follow rules, and the rules are previous rulings. And in the Abu-Jamal case, they just keep going back and forth, flip-flopping all over the place. So hopefully the Third Circuit will be that forum where finally judges apply the law. If, in fact, they apply the law, the three judges on this particular panel have participated in panels of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals over the last 3 1/2 years, where they have overturned life sentences and death sentences because of the jury discriminatory selection practices of the Philadelphia District Attorney's office. AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Linn Washington, columnist for the Philadelphia Tribune. Did you know Mumia Abu-Jamal before he was imprisoned? LINN WASHINGTON: I knew him. Wow, let me just say this, I knew him before people called me "sir" and "mister." They called me "young man." I first met Mumia in 1973 when we both worked at Temple Universitys radio station, WRTI-FM. We were acquaintances from, I guess, a period of 1976 up through his incarceration, or shall I say, his arrest and subsequent incarceration. We worked very closely together as reporters here in Philadelphia, and, yes, we did, in fact, develop a good friendship. AMY GOODMAN: This hearing on Thursday, there's expected to be a major rally outside. Can you talk about the preparations, and also what do you expect to come out of it? When will the decision be made? LINN WASHINGTON: Well, from what Im told, both from checking with my sources and reading press releases, because Im not a part of the activism related to this, they expect busloads of people from outside of the city, a groundswell of support within the city, people coming in from Europe, England and France and Germany, in particular. And in terms of the outcome, the case will -- or should I say the panel will probably deliberate a couple of weeks, if not one or two months, and then they will issue their opinion. The federal courts usually proceed in their deliberations a lot quicker than state courts, so we could have a decision in this case clearly before the end of the year, perhaps as recently or as soon as a couple of months. AMY GOODMAN: That decision could bewhat are the options? LINN WASHINGTON: Well, the options, from what I understand, are a couple. One, the appeals court could order a whole new trial for Abu-Jamal. Number two, they could send the case back to the district court judge who handled it, which is called a remand, with instructions to hold a hearing or make rulings in a particular way that would probably be on the jury selection discrimination issue. They could also order a new PCRA. In 1995, there was a state-level appeal, and in this appeal, this is where the trial judge, Albert Sabo, the original trial judge, engaged in egregious misconduct. So the federal courts could order a new PCRA hearing, and Im told that may, in all probability, take place in a federal court. They could also uphold Abu-Jamal's conviction. Then there would be perhaps -- well, not perhaps, there would be an appeal to the US Supreme Court. In all likelihood, given the composition of that court, Abu-Jamal's conviction would be upheld, and then it would come back to the governor of the state, and he has already pledged -- some more politicization -- that he would sign a death warrant, and then things would move along on a wholly different track. AMY GOODMAN: Governor Rendell? LINN WASHINGTON: Governor Ed Rendell, who was the DA of Philadelphia at the time of Abu-Jamal's original trial, subsequently became the mayor of the city, where he presided over extraordinary police brutality, fighting it tooth and nail, and now hes the -- when I say fighting it tooth and nail, not fighting against it, fighting to cover it up and to ameliorate it -- and now he's the governor of our state. AMY GOODMAN: I remember going to Philadelphia for one of the hearings that was before Judge Sabo in 1995. It was a remarkable, I guess you could say, performance. He would walk in and out of the courtroom. LINN WASHINGTON: Yes, yes. I mean, this guy was the absolute worst. His behavior in 1995 was so bad that Philadelphia's mainstream media not only editorialized against it, saying it was a travesty of justice and undermined any semblance of a fair trial, it actually gave fuel to Abu-Jamal's supporters complaints. But like I said, these people were normally hostile to Abu-Jamal, and they were really outraged by it. But, unfortunately, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court wasn't. And in their 1998 opinion upholding Abu-Jamal's appeal, they said the opinions of a handful of journalists do not convince us that Sabo was not impartial, despite him doing a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, ix, y, z, you know, all the way down, a whole litany of things that he did, but they said, he was, in fact, impartial, and we're going to stand by it. That, too, was a travesty. But you have to understand, there's been such politicization of this court, five members of the seven-member Supreme Court that upheld Abu-Jamal's conviction in 1998 received campaign contributions and campaign support from the Fraternal Order of Police, which is a Philadelphia police union, the main group that is pushing for his execution. Does that give the appearance of impartiality? It doesn't to a lot of people, because of the campaign finances. There was a study done, ironically, in 1998, where the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had a commission do a survey of the public, and -- what was it -- 4 out of 10, or it was an extraordinarily high percentage of the public in Pennsylvania, felt that campaign contributions had a direct impact on rulings and deliberations of all courts, including the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. AMY GOODMAN: Linn Washington, we'll leave it there, but we'll continue to cover this case through the week. Columnist for the Philadelphia Tribune, Linn Washington, also a journalist and professor at Temple University, thanks so much for joining us, as we end today's broadcast with Mumia Abu-Jamal in his own words. Last November, he appeared on the Block Report Radio program. MUMIA ABU-JAMAL: People who believe purely in the law are sometimes met with unbelief. They can't believe that the law hasn't done the right thing. That's because they have a misunderstanding of the law. I mean, what has happened in my case has happened in other people's cases. The question is not the law, but the people. If people organize and people understand that it will take the power of the people, you know, to change this thing, then they'll understand what they need to do, if they feel compelled, if they feel pushed, if they feel that this is the right thing to do. But, you know, if we know anything from history, we know that the law has been the force for the outlaw for hundreds of years for our people. I mean, right after the Civil War, the so-called Reconstruction amendments were put in the Constitution, but for millions of our people all across the country, it was as if no such amendments were written, because our people still couldn't vote. We were not free. We couldn't make contracts or have jobs or go to decent schools. You know, look at our condition today. So the law is one thing. The people are another. I rely on the people. AMY GOODMAN: Mumia Abu-Jamal. His hearing will be on Thursday in Philadelphia. (source: Infoshop News) ************* 25 years later, Mumia Abu-Jamal's case to be argued in appeals court When police officers arrived as backup during a traffic stop in 1981, they found black activist Mumia Abu-Jamal sitting on a curb with a bullet in his chest and a gun by his side. Officer Daniel Faulkner lay dying from bullets fired from Abu-Jamal's gun. The facts seem brutally clear to prosecutors, but Abu-Jamal's writings from death row have sparked a boisterous, global "Free Mumia" movement that has attracted celebrities and endured for a quarter century. On Thursday, the movement's claims that he is the victim of a racist U.S. justice system reach the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals after decades of litigation. Abu-Jamal's death sentence was overturned in 2001. Prosecutors are asking the appeals court to reinstate it, while Abu-Jamal's attorney will challenge his 1982 conviction. Abu-Jamal, 53, has written several books while offering radio and Web commentaries delivered at times through prison phone calls. The writer Alice Walker compared him to Nelson Mandela, while actors Alec Baldwin, Martin Sheen and others have supported his cause. A suburb of Paris has named a street after him, while the wife of former French president Francois Mitterand visited him in prison. 3 issues are on the table Thursday: whether the trial judge was racially biased, whether the judge erred in instructing jurors on the death penalty, and whether the prosecution preferred white jurors. Abu-Jamal is not entitled to be in court. Abu-Jamal had once channeled his intelligence and charisma into work as a radio reporter. But he was perhaps floundering by 1981 and was driving a cab the night of Faulkner's death. According to witnesses, Faulkner had pulled over Abu-Jamal's brother, William Cook, on a downtown street when Abu-Jamal ran to the scene from his nearby taxi. Ballistics evidence showed that Abu-Jamal born Wesley Cook shot Faulkner in the back, Faulkner shot back and then Abu-Jamal stood over the fallen officer and emptied his weapon, prosecutors say. Little has been said about motive. Abu-Jamal has never testified. "That case was the strongest case that I ever had," Joseph J. McGill, the lead prosecutor at the 1982 trial, said this week. "You have everything in terms of evidence, but the key evidence is he never left the scene." Responding to the jury issue, McGill said he had hoped to seat 4 blacks, but that the defense struck 1 and another was removed by the judge. That left 10 whites and 2 blacks. As for the judge, the late Albert Sabo presided at both the two-week trial and a lengthy post-conviction hearing in 1995. Abu-Jamal contends Sabo was a pro-police racist. Sabo reportedly used a racial epithet to refer to Abu-Jamal, according to lawyer Robert R. Bryan, who represents Abu-Jamal on appeal. "Judge Sabo stated ... that he was 'going to help 'em fry the n-----,'" Bryan wrote, quoting from a court stenographer's 2001 deposition. Faulkner's widow, Maureen, will be in court Thursday. She admits, at age 50, to sometimes feeling worn down by it all. "Right now, the federal courts aren't even looking at if he's guilty or innocent, they're looking at a technicality," she said Tuesday. On the Net: Free Mumia site: http://www.mumia.org Daniel Faulkner site: http://www.danielfaulkner.com (source: Associated Press)
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----N.Y., USA, N.C., TENN., PENN.
Rick Halperin Sat, 19 May 2007 03:00:51 -0500 (Central Daylight Time)
