Interview mit St.Hawkins(Mumia-Anwalt) über die neue Gerichtsentscheidung

Von: < sharris@snet.net >

Datum: Dienstag, 01. Jänner 2002

 

BETWEEN THE LINES Q&A

from the nationally syndicated radio newsmagazine

„Between The Lines“

http://www.btlonline.org

—————————————————————————

**Sending All Our subscribers Hope For a More Peaceful and Just New

Year!!**

 

A weekly column featuring progressive viewpoints

on national and international issues under-reported

in major media

For release Dec. 31, 2001

=====================================================

New Sentencing Hearing

for Mumia Abu Jamal

a Result of Flawed Trial and Growing Worldwide Protest

http://www.wpkn.org/wpkn/news/hawkins010402.ram

Interview by Scott Harris.

 

* An interview with Steve Hawkins,

an attorney who worked with Mumia Abu Jamal’s

legal team for six years and now serves

as the executive director of the National

Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty.

 

In a major development in one of the nation’s most closely watched

capital punishment cases, federal Judge William Yohn announced his

decision to throw out the death sentence against Mumia Abu Jamal,

convicted of the1981 murder of Philadelphia police officer Daniel

Faulkner. Jamal, an award-winning journalist on Pennsylvania’s death row

for 20 years, has drawn attention to his case through radio commentaries

and the publication of several books critical of the U.S. justice

system. Thousands of supporters across the globe have demanded that the

47-year-old former Black Panther be freed or receive a new trial.

 

Judge Yohn’s decision issued Dec. 18, upholds Jamal’s first degree

murder conviction, but ruled that the state must conduct a new

sentencing hearing within six months, or a life sentence without parole

would be imposed. Jamal’s supporters have vowed to appeal the judge’s

decision and press their demand for a new trial that would include the

testimony of Ronald Beverley, who recently confessed that he, not Jamal

killed Daniel Faulkner. Officer Faulkner’s wife and many police

officials have bitterly condemned the judge’s ruling.

 

Between The Lines‘ Scott Harris spoke with Steve Hawkins, an attorney

who worked with Mumia Abu Jamal’s legal team for six years and now

serves as the executive director of the National Coalition to Abolish

the Death Penalty. Hawkins analyzes the latest developments in Jamal’s

case and how they may affect the movement to end capital punishment.

 

Steve Hawkins: Judge Yohn has only overturned Mumia’s death sentence,

not the underlying conviction and because of that, Mumia is now entitled

to a new sentencing hearing. What the judge found is that the jury in

the initial sentencing hearing was not allowed to individually consider

mitigating evidence, evidence that would allow the jury to vote for a

sentence less than death. The jury was led to believe that — and this

was a big error — that they had to agree unanimously on anything that

was of mitigating value. So that’s really the sum of Judge Yohn’s

ruling.

 

Between The Lines: What is allowed to be introduced in such a hearing?

Supporters of Mumia Abu Jamal, of course want the issue of guilt or

innocence to come up. Can it happen in such a sentencing hearing?

 

Steve Hawkins: Is it possible to get the jury to focus on the question

of, is the right person before them for sentencing? Yes, there is a

narrow window because of something called „lingering doubt“ about guilt,

which has been in the law for awhile. But we have seen in Virginia, for

example, where several governors have commuted death sentences. Even

though the person has been convicted, the governor has said, „I have a

lingering doubt as to whether the system got it right.“ The attorneys

may very well argue to the jury that the system has the wrong man, and

make that part of their argument as to why a sentence of death should

not be imposed. It would be very critical to Mumia’s whole defense if

the jury was to come back and say, „We refuse to sentence this man to

death because we still believe there is a lingering doubt about his

guilt.“ I phrase it that way because there were several egregious errors

— major constitutional violations — that happened at Mumia’s trial.

The judge should have granted him a new trial for a complete

determination of guilt or innocence and that has not happened. Mumia’s

lawyers will appeal the decision of the federal court.

 

Between The Lines: Could you describe the wider significance of this

judge’s decision in Mumia Abu Jamal’s case for those advocating

abolition of the death penalty?

 

Steve Hawkins: Mumia’s case represents very clearly how difficult it is

for people who have credible claims of innocence to get that evidence

heard in federal court. We have heard of people who have been released

from death row on grounds of innocence. Most of those people have been

incredibly lucky, frankly, to get released. DNA has cleared perhaps a

quarter of them now. Others have been able to get critical evidence

heard. But we all — someone like myself, who’s been involved in death

penalty defense for 13 years now — we all know of cases where people

were executed when there were serious doubts about their guilt. Mumia is

in that situation where he is fighting for his life to get his evidence

heard. So it underscores for those of us who are opposed to the death

penalty, the difficulties that exist and why it is so important that

these cases get heard. (These cases) help to reveal all of the problems

that underlie how the death penalty is used in the United States.

 

Mumia’s attorney, for example, at the original trial had no experience

with any death penalty trials. He was only given $150 to hire a

investigator, which is completely unrealistic. That is how poor people,

time and again, are subject to the death penalty in the United States.

The other issue of course, is racial bias. Philadelphia had a very clear

history of keeping black people off of capital juries. It was furthered

by having someone like Judge Sabo send more people to death row than any

other judge in the country. Of all the people he sent to death row, all

but two of the people were African American or Latino.

 

I do not think that Mumia would have gotten the relief that he did, a

new sentencing hearing, without the kind of activism that has taken

place nationally and internationally. There have been hundreds of people

on the streets in Philadelphia, thousands of people in the streets in

Paris and other parts of the world, and all of that pressure has

certainly helped to make his case well-known, but also, I think, to

further his chances in court.

 

Many people believe Mumia was very much specifically targeted by the

Philadelphia police. He was well-known, he was writing about the

injustices and the police brutality in Philadelphia at the time it

happened. I frankly have found that most people who get relief from

death row in the United States get relief because somebody makes known

what is happening in their case. I don’t think that most people get

relief silently because the courts just work out the problems in the

case.

 

Contact the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty by calling

(888) 286-2237 or visit their Web site at http://www.ncadp.org

 

See related links and listen to an excerpt of this interview in a

RealAudio segment or in MP3 on our Web site at: <a

HREF=“ http://www.wpkn.org/wpkn/news/btl010402.html www.btlonline.org </a>

 

for the week ending 1/4/02.

=============================

Scott Harris is the executive producer of Between The Lines. This

interview excerpt was featured on the award-winning, syndicated weekly

radio newsmagazine, Between The

Lines, for the week ending Jan. 4, 2002.

 

Join PCAN, Pennsylvania’s independent progressive voice.  Dues are $35 a

year.

PA Fair Trade Campaign

c/o PCAN

529 Court St., #306

Reading, PA 19601

610-478-7888

610-478-7457-fax

www.pcan.org