Embassy of the United States of America
January 9, 2004
Karl Fischbacher
„Solidaritaet mit Mumia Abu- Jamal“ Stiftgasse 8
A- 1070 WIEN
- To Whom It May Concern:
- Please find enclosed information pertaining to the death penalty case of Mr. Mumia Abu Jamal. I hope you find the information useful. We have forwarded the petition you handed to us an December 10, 2003, to our contacts in Washington, DC. Please let me know if you have any further questions.
– Gregory E. Phillips
Gregory E. Phillips
Counselor for Economic and
Political Affairs
- Mr. Mumia Abu Jamal is currently incarcerated at Green Correctional Institution in Waynesburg, Pennsylvania, pending execution for the murder of a Philadelphia Police Officer. He is challenging the verdict and sentence an the grounds that he is innocent and that his trial was affected by racism.
A writ of habeas corpus is pending before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in the case. Other organizations also continue legal efforts in support of those of Mr. Abu Jamal. Recent developments in this case include the following action by a District Court:
In August 2000, William H. Yohn, District Judge, rejected two amicus curiae briefs submitted in relation to the habeas petition by twenty-two members of the British Parliament and the Chicana/Chicano Studies Foundation.
- The two groups filed an appeal and a joint petition for a writ of mandamus to order Judge Yohn to accept the briefs. On December 8, 2000 the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued orders:
- Dismissing the appeal as jurisdictionally defective because the denial of leave to proceed as an amicus is not an appealable order and does not fall within the exception to the final order doctrine.
Denying the petition for the writ of mandamus, holding that the district court was not clearly erroneous and the petitioners do not have the indisputable right to participate as amici in the habeas petition.“
To date, these orders of the Third Circuit have not been appealed.
- The 1999 stay of execution in Mr. Mumia Abu Jamal does not appear to have been lifted.
On January 12, 2000, Mr. Stuart Ishimaru, the former Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, met with representatives of the International Committee to Save the Life of Mumia Abu Jamal an January 12, 2000.
- Following this meeting, Assistant Attorney General Robert Raben , sent a letter to the Honorable Maxine Waters stating that the Department of Justice is concerned about allegations of violations of constitutional rights of prisoners, and that the Criminal Section of the Civil Rights Division actively prosecutes those who abuse fundamental rights acting under the color of the law.
The Justice Department letter further indicates that the Department has reviewed Mr. Abu Jamal’s claims and concluded they do not warrant investigation at this time. Further, the deficiency in witness credibility and the lack of evidentiary support for Mr. Abu Jamal’s allegations pose serious impediments to any criminal prosecution by the Civil Rights Division of the Department.
- The Justice Department believes that the petition for federal habeas corpus relief provides a more appropriate venue than a federal criminal prosecution to address the alleged improprieties at Mr. Abu Jamal’s trial.
- BACKGROUND ON THE DEATH PENALTY ISSUE
- International law does not currently prohibit the death penalty, although we understand that many people, both in the US and elsewhere, favor legal prohibitions on capital punishment. At this point in time, the US Supreme Court has also held that the death penalty is legal under the US Constitution.
The issue of capital punishment remains a matter of great importance and vigorous public debate in the United States. Nonetheless, a majority of the people in a majority of the states, and of the country as a whole, have chosen through their elected representatives to provide for the possibility of capital punishment for the most serious crimes. Capital punishment is currently permitted in thirty-eight states and by the Federal Government; twelve states and the District of Columbia do not use the death penalty.
In those states which permit capital punishment, it may only be imposed for the most serious crimes (essentially aggravated, intentional homicide), subject to stringent procedures intended to protect the defendant’s due process rights (including a separate sentencing hearing at which both aggravating and mitigating circumstances must be weighed). Among the issues which are frequently argued before state as well as federal courts are: racial discrimination in the application of the death penalty, inadequate counsel and inability to adduce exculpatory evidence, and impermissibly long periods of confinement an death row.
The US ratified the Torture Convention and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights subject to reservations that limit U.S. obligations with regard to the death penalty to the prohibitions against cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the US Constitution’s Fifth, Eighth and/or Fourteenth Amendments. This reservation has the intended effect of leaving the important question of capital punishment to the US’s domestic political, legislative, and judicial processes.